faith

Parashat Chaya Sarah (The Life of Sarah)

Posted by

0

Genesis 23 – 25:13

The Parsha for this week begins with the words “And the life of Sarah came to be one hundred and 27 years” Genesis 23:1: She, Sarah died and Abraham mourned.

Abraham Grieves and Bargains:

We see Abraham deeply grieved over the loss of his wife, Sarah who had been his companion ever since they left Ur of the Chaldees where he took her as wife before they traveled with Terah and Lot towards the land of Canaan. They stopped at Haran which was a city in what is modern Turkey. This is a trip of around 950 kilometers. They lived there until Abraham’s father Terah died. Gen. 11:30-31. And then the call of Abraham began his journey with his wife, lot and their servants towards Canaan.

We know from the Biblical account of the birth of Isaac that Sarah was 9 years younger than Abraham. She was, as it is stated 127 years old when she died leaving Abraham at 136 years of his life and her son Isaac at 36 years of age. 

Courtesy of Aish.com

Abraham, in the midst of mourning, realized that he had no permanent place to bury Sarah and got up from beside his loved one and went to bargain with the Hittites for the burial cave of Machpelah which is in Hebron, the area in which Abraham lived at the time. 

He approached the leaders of the Hittites and asked to buy from them a burial site. They offered to give him a place among the choices of sites, but he refused saying he wanted to buy it. It is clear that Abraham at this time knew the devious mind of the Canaanites and needed a guarantee that they would not reassume this land as theirs after his death. At this point he asked to have them intercede with the owner of the cave of Machpelah to sell it to him. He also offered it for free, but after arguing for the purchase, Ephron, son of Zohar, agreed upon 400 shekels of silver and the deal was done. 

The question arises to those of us who look back upon the history of Israel and the problems that have always existed with those who claim to own the land, “why would he buy it if it was already promised to him.” 

From history, we know that it took many years after Abraham to fully conquer the land of Canaan. After the time in Egypt, 400 years, and 40 years in the wilderness under the leadership of Moses, the beginning of the conquest of the promised land began with the crossing of the Jordan and the fall of Jericho. Previously the tribes of Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of Manassah had requested the fertile land east of the Jordan, the Bashan and conquered it from King Og of that area. But this was given to them based on their commitment to fight for the rest of Canaan until it was subdued. 

Abraham, had to live with the promise of the land, even though he himself could only trust this promise. This was similar to God’s promise of descendants that would be a great nation, and for which he waited for 25 years for the birth of Isaac. Then with the call to Mt. Moriah where he was told to offer up Isaac, his faith was tested almost to the edge of his endurance. 

Abraham knew well the mind of the residents of the land at that time, which by the way have not changed a lot even in modern times. The past few years of our life in Israel has showed us the mind of the Middle East like we would have never imagined it. Israel fights with subtlety. Sometimes it is not apparent why the nation of Israel does what it does. There have been peace agreements and land even given to keep peace, but it never works. Maybe if the government of Israel studied the life of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua and the conquest of the land, we might get it. The sad thing is that many of those who lay claim to the land are actual descendants of Abraham through Ishmael or Esau or any of Abraham’s other sons whom were born to him by Keturah.

Gen 25:1-4 speaks of the offspring of Keturah:

“1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. 3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim. 4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.”

Trouble in the Middle East:

If Abraham had foreseen the trouble that would exist throughout History through his descendants, maybe he would not have taken another wife! It might be easy to justify that they were all descendants of Abraham and therefore had a right to the land. Yet, Isaac was specified inheritor of the land which was promised to Abraham. The promise of land, and the promise of a son, both went hand in hand. That which Abraham created on his own impulse became a curse to his descendants. 

Gen 25:5-6:

 “5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.”

Now today, when the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have lived in exile for 2500+ years, owing to their own disobedience, the challenge to take what is rightfully ours facing the odds of the many nations that would deprive us of this inheritance, is overwhelming to most. Even our supposed allies see in our extremity an opportunity to usurp power over parts of the land. Gaza, though much of it is destroyed, has become a coveted bargaining tool for the United States. We must not succumb to this manipulation! 

Where is the promise of the God of Abraham? Where is the faith of Abraham? How can we sit on our hands, so to speak, and back off from the victories we have made, trusting the “chariot and horses” of the nations that boast more power than Israel? Where is the God of Israel?

Psa 20:

“7 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of YHVH, our God.”

Isa 31:

 “1 Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek YHVH!”

Parashat Vayera Genesis 18-22

Posted by

11

Sodom, Promise to Abraham, Ishmael, Hagar, Isaac, Akeida…Gaza

Genesis 18-22, covers a lot of ground. There is probably enough material for a book on any of the topics recorded in these four chapters.

Angels’ Visit to Abraham:

In Genesis 18, YHVH appears to Abraham, and he sees three figures pass by the tent while he is sitting in the entrance in the “heat of the day”. Genesis 17 tells of Abraham circumcising himself, Ishmael and all the males of his household. Chapter 18 follows with Abraham sitting at the door of his tent. Many commentaries say that Abraham was still in the pain of the circumcision when the visitors came to him. This is not clear from the plain reading of the text.

In chapter 17:26 we read: “Thus Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised on that very day;” From the context it seems that Abraham circumcised both himself and Ishmael on the very day that he received the command to do so. The rest of the servants and staff of his household are mentioned afterwards and thus may have been circumcised a little later. It is not clear that they were all circumcised on the same day, nor is it clear that Abraham was sitting in the “heat” (“heat” according to rabbinic commentaries meaning maximum pain) on the 3rd day when the Heavenly visitors came. There is no mention of the 3rd day here.

 “Babylonian Talmud (Bava Metzia 86b), interprets “in the heat of the day” as a reference to the third day after Abraham was circumcised at the age of 99.”

What is a possible understanding of a text is not necessarily fact, as we often see when reading biblical texts and their commentaries. If we stay true to Biblical text, there will be unanswered questions which must be explored or accepted as unanswered. What would be the motive for saying that YHVH visited Abraham on the 3rd day when he was in extreme pain? 

The text shows Abraham running to meet the three visitors. How could he do this in the pain after circumcision?

 “And Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.” My Lord,” said Abraham, “if I have found favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, that you may wash your feet and rest yourselves under the tree. And I will bring a bit of bread so that you may refresh yourselves. This is why you have passed your servant’s way. After that, you may continue on your way.”

Why does Abraham address the three men as “my Lord” in the singular (Master–Adonai in Hebrew)? The first verse of chapter 18 says: 

“Then YHVH appeared to Abraham by the Oaksa of Mamre in the heat of the day, while he was sitting at the entrance of his tent.” 18:1

Does Abraham address YHVH or the three men since it is written in the singular? Does he recognize one of them as YHVH and the other two as angels? 

Later, after two of the men leave, YHVH stays with Abraham to bargain for the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. It would appear that Abraham knows whom he must speak to. 

We see Abraham with typical Middle Eastern hospitality, send his servant to prepare a calf and his wife to make three portions of flour into bread to set before his guests. What was set before the guests in this meal? 

Milk and Meat:

“Then Abraham brought curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and he set them before the men and stood by them under the tree as they ate.” 18:8

Why does Abraham serve milk, curds and a calf at the same meal? It is clear that the meat was prepared separately from the milk, (it was not boiled in the milk). But in Modern Judaism, dishes made with milk are never allowed at a meal where meat is consumed. How has this bottom line rule of Modern Judaism evolved from a clearly written passage that apparently Abraham understood? (By the way the law was written three times in the Torah so we wouldn’t get it wrong. (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21). 

Is it possible that the law about boiling a kid in its mother’s milk was not known by Abraham? It is pretty clear that he did not boil anything, so when Genesis 26 says that Abraham knew the laws of the Torah, it must mean he had a better idea of what it meant than what is known as Torah today. So how did this law evolve to what it is today? 

Did Abraham keep the Torah?

26:5  עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי וַיִּשְׁמֹר מִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִצְוֺתַי חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי׃

Gen 26: “5 because that Abraham hearkened to my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (The Hebrew for ” law” is Torah).

After the meal the two men with YHVH got up to journey to Sodom and YHVH stayed to speak more with Abraham about His plans to destroy the wicked city. Abraham bargains for the salvation of the city from 50 innocent, down to 10, that the judge of the earth be merciful–not slaying the righteous with the wicked (verse 23). And then YHVH left. 

Ten Men

From this passage which shows ten people as being the limit to God’s mercy, we have the declaration that an Orthodox minyan requires 10 men to intercede with the Eternal on important matters such as reciting the Mourner’s Kaddish or Yahrzeit or Wedding blessings. If we look at the passage in Genesis, the 10 referred to righteous persons not necessarily, men. And another question arises, is it always necessary to have 10 persons pray to YHVH on important matters? Certainly, from the standpoint of numbers the more righteous people pray the more they will be heard. But what about when Elijah called down fire from heaven? He was a lone voice. Are there other times when God answers prayers without a minyan? 

Isaac

In chapter 21 the promise to Sarah is fulfilled. She gives birth to Isaac. His name means laughter. Isn’t it interesting that both Abraham and Sarah laughed when the promise was first given to them? Isaac’s name was given by YHVH in advance of his birth. When Abraham laughed (Chapter 17:17), he asked how it might be that a man at 100 and Sarah at 90 could have a son? In chapter 18 when the three Strangers visited Abraham, it was Sarah’s turn to laugh (Chapter 18:12) but she was afraid and lied that she had not laughed. She asked how she having passed her child bearing age and her husband so old, should finally find enjoyment. 

Angels visit Lot

In chapter 19, the two angel messengers arrive at Sodom and are urged to stay with Lot. In the evening, the town’s people want to defile them, and Lot offers to surrender his two virgin daughters for the town to do as they wished. The angels then saved Lot from this harrowing encounter with the townsfolk by striking blindness upon those gathered outside. 

Why would this be right for a father to say if he stands as the protector of the family? Later, Lot did not seek husbands for his daughters, and they chose the path of incest with their father to be able to produce offspring. Some say they were so isolated that they didn’t ever encounter men available to marry. Maybe they were afraid to marry any of the inhabitants of the land.

Looking back at the escape from Sodom: when in the morning Lot, his wife and daughters were hurried out of the city, they were warned to hurry and not look back. Lot’s wife turned to a pillar of salt when she disobeyed. What does this mean? Was it a literal pillar, or was it a lesson in not having bitterness about leaving the past behind? Was she unwilling to leave and got caught by the fire that was falling? Did she lag behind when the rest of them were hurrying to safety? Why did she look back? 

Casting out Ishmael

In chapter 21, when Isaac is born and is circumcised, we see Sarah asking to have Ishmael cast out with his mother, so that he would not inherit anything that belonged rightfully to Isaac. But if we remember, it was at Sarah’s insistence that Hagar be taken to produce a son for Abraham. Now that she has a child of her own, she turns on Hagar who is extradited at God’s command and sent to wander with her son in the desert. The boy was more than 13, given the timeline of what had happened previously. Abraham and Ishmael are circumcised when Ishmael is 13, then the next year Sarah gives birth to Isaac, Ishmael is playing, perhaps mocking Isaac and Sarah tells Abraham to send them away. Ishmael, strangely is shown to be a child in the verses that follow. His mother lays him down under a bush to die. How is this possible, if he is a strapping lad of 14 or more? Was he in grief so overbearing that he wanted to die and thus lay down himself? When the angel found Hagar, he said that God had heard Ishmael’s prayer (21:17). He also gave her the promise that Ishmael would be blessed and grow to a great nation. 

Not many years hence it was the Ishmaelites that bought Joseph when his brothers decided to sell him. Only 2 generations had passed, and there was already animosity enough to sell their kinsman as a slave. 

Why the test of Akeida

We see Abraham making an alliance with Abimelech which later seems to have brought about the test of all time, the call for the Akeida on Mt. Moriah. God tested Abraham with an almost unimaginable test after making a covenant with a foreign power. The land was not to be bartered off. The land was given to Abraham, so why did he make a covenant with Abimelech? Looking back on this with knowledge of Israel’s struggles with alliances seems to reveal a that God was showing Abraham that if he gave the land away, he might as well not have descendants, and we see that happening all around us today. Curiously Abimelech returned to the land of the Philistines which was Gaza. 

“And Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines a long time.” (21:34)

Why are we still having trouble with Gaza? Was all this started with a wrongful covenant that Abraham made with Abimelech?

Shabbat Shalom!

Ariella

The Evil Inclination–How to catch a Snake before it Bites

Posted by

The Power of Choice

Among religions that embrace the Bible as God’s word, there are two approaches that attempt to explain the nature of man. Christians for the most part embrace Original Sin and this belief is backed by the current understanding which comes from the writings of the New Testament. Jews however do not embrace this theory, as the belief put forth in the Old Testament or Tanakh does not support it. We call what came upon humanity after eating of the tree in the Garden, the Evil Inclination. In this paper, I want to open discussion of these two beliefs and their effects on humanity.

So first off, what is Original Sin, and when was this doctrine formalized in Christianity?

The following quotes cite what is generally believed to be timing for the development and the definition of Original Sin:

“While the Genesis story lays the foundation for the concept of the Fall, St. Augustine was the first to use the term “original sin” and articulate its transmission through human reproduction. The Roman Catholic Church later formalized the doctrine at the Council of Trent, while figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin contributed to its development and spread, especially during the Protestant Reformation.” (See Reference here).

“The doctrine of original sin was developed by Saint Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries and gained official acceptance in the Western Church at the Council of Carthage in 418 CE, leading to its incorporation into Roman Catholic doctrine. The doctrine was then formalized further by the Councils of Trent in the 16th century.” (Web Reference here).

“Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God. It is an important doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church. The concept of Original Sin was explained in depth by St Augustine and formalized as part of Roman Catholic doctrine by the Councils of Trent in the 16th Century. Original sin is not just this inherited spiritual disease or defect in human nature; it’s also the ‘condemnation’ that goes with that fault.” (Reference)

But is this an acceptable approach in the process of salvation?

I would guess that the majority of Christians accept the doctrine of Original Sin as undeniable truth.  I am uncomfortable with it.
The belief that Adam and Eve, by choosing to eat of the forbidden tree, now had no alternative but to receive a fallen nature– inherently sinful for their descendants from birth. It continues that all of humanity has carried this curse from that moment in the garden until this day. This obviously demands interference from Heaven in providing a substitute who cleans up the record of whomever will accept it. However, if we think through this theory and what it actually reveals, we will see things that do not fit the picture.

Sins that pass down:

There is the verse given in Exodus 20 in the command to abstain from idol worship which claims that the sins of the fathers pass down.

Exo 20: “5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I YHVH, thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” Note that these are passed down from those who hate God.

So how do we fit that into our views? We know that an alcoholic or drug addict often passes down tendencies toward addictions to his or her children. We see it all the time. And a mother or father who justifies lying in their own life will see the same trend in the lives of their children. Is this a genetic weakness? Or is it learned behavior? If it is not genetic, then why do children who are adopted out as infants to different home often have the same traits? It is almost like hereditary weaknesses to disease. But regardless of our parents weaknesses and actual sins, we are challenged to overcome these things, no matter how difficult.

There is the question of why the Eternal would even place that tree in the garden and allow Eve to be seduced and lied to in her status of innocence. This creates a picture of a cruel and unjust God who purposely created mankind to fail. It also leads to a need for another substitute god who understands mankind by taking on human flesh and is able to present them to this angry God and justify them by his own blood.  But I cannot accept this theory because of what it does to distort the character of the God of the Universe!

If my last two articles are correct (See Here and Here), when the Creator said, Let US make man in Our image, after Our likeness, He was speaking to the man who would play a part by his own choice of which nature would dominate him. It also indicates that mankind, though created by the hand of God, was still made from the dust of the earth, which meant that he was created to be human and not in the image of the angels. His choices would decide if he would reflect the divine image, or if he would merely be as the beasts that perish. 

Those who strive for the divine image struggle with difficulties placed upon their nature by the choices their first parents made at the forbidden tree. Is this struggle all bad? It surely would have been easier for humans to live here on earth in luxury, not having to work, having everything they want bestowed upon them without a struggle on their part, but was that the divine plan?

So what actually happened at the tree? Is it possible that rather than God being harsh and exacting, He was planning through the cooperation of mankind after the fall to become the strongest race of beings that were ever created? Was the Yetzer Hara (Evil Inclination) really a condemnation of doom to the human race, or was it actually a test and process for the creation of man in the image of God? A program for the creation of people who would be trusted to rule the world and maybe even part of the universe?

A case was made by the serpent to doubt God’s word and His very character. Eve chose to offer the same temptation to Adam, who might have resisted but for her insistence, joined her in disobedience. At this point they opted for the right to choose for themselves against the instructions of the Creator. Was it right to choose for themselves at this point in their time on earth? I can’t answer that. The choice they made was clearly based on doubt towards their Creator and desire for something new and exciting. Isn’t this what is behind nearly every bad choice that humans make?  If we think of the sins that usually tempt us, most of them are irrational based on good judgment. Sins of lust, exploitation, self gratification, murder, thievery, abuse of drugs and every other temptation.

Judaism claims that the Yetzer Hara came into being when the couple chose to eat of the fruit. But how is the Evil Inclination different from Original Sin? 

So what is the difference in the two views?

Original sin is a burden mankind cannot deal with unless he has a substitute. He is born with a sinful nature and cannot be righteous by his own choices nor by suppression of his evil nature, nor of locking oneself in monasteries where self chastisement is practiced. 
The Evil Inclination, is an inherited tendency to obey one’s passions and lusts, that is, like Original Sin passed down from generation to generation, but contrary to the view of the helpless condition of mankind under Original Sin, the evil inclination can be suppressed by obedience to the Torah and humbly seeking help from the Almighty. So the Yetzer Hara can actually be a testing agent to prepare us for greater things. We think of kings who sent their young sons to learn sword fighting in past ages. They had to become strong and clever to be able to fight the wars that they must win when they became king themselves.

From Sefaria (a Jewish Reference website), the Way of God by the RaMCHal:
“Man is the creature created for the purpose of being drawn close to God. He is placed between perfection and deficiency, with the power to earn perfection. Man must earn this perfection, however, through his own free will…Man’s inclinations are therefore balanced between good [Yetzer Hatov] and evil [Yetzer Hara], and he is not compelled toward either of them. He has the power of choice and is able to choose either side knowingly and willingly...” Reference

There is a proof text for the idea that sin can be overcome before the evil inclination is acted upon in Genesis, where God interrupted Cain before he slew his brother:

Gen 4:”5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6 Then the YHVH said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

So before Cain acted on his anger, he was told that he could and must rule over it. This does not sound like Original Sin, of which it is claimed that humanly we can do nothing about it and that is the reason for the need of a substitute to overcome for us.

Very early on in the history of the world, God Himself tells Cain that he can “do what is right”: and if he does, he will “be accepted”. Note that he is not condemned for his anger. This is that evil inclination that he received from his parents genetically. But Elohim continued:”you must rule over it.” Can we as humans rule over our passions? Christianity says we cannot without a substitute. The Bible says we can do it with God’s help and our own determination. This is how righteous men and women of old were formed–man rising above the dust of the earth to reflect in himself the divine image!

Before the flood, there were two distinct classes of people. The righteous Sons of God who exercised control over their passions and submitted to God’s leading, and the wicked rabble –those who chose to follow their passions. The world came to an end at that time for all but eight people. 

Are there other examples?  Does God offer strength to overcome?

So how do we explain Psalms 51:5?

“5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.” 

This verse is used to support the doctrine of Original Sin, yet, the Evil Inclination, (the desire to do evil) is also passed down from generation to generation. So what is David saying? That the temptation was overwhelming and he blew it. That it was natural for him to be tempted and though he does not excuse it, he reminds the Creator of this as if reminding Him of his human weakness, but David goes on to express his gratitude for God’s mercy. In a way, he blames his parentage for passing this temptation down to him. But in the words that follow, he takes the entire blame. 

Psa 51:”3 For I know my transgressions; And my sin is ever before me.  … 7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.  8 Make me to hear joy and gladness, That the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.  9 Hide thy face from my sins, And blot out all mine iniquities.  10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me.  11 Cast me not away from thy presence; And take not thy Holy Spirit from me.  12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; And uphold me with a willing spirit. “14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God, you who are God my Savior, and my tongue will sing of your righteousness. 15 Open my lips, Lord, and my mouth will declare your praise. 16 For you do not delight in sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou hast no pleasure in burnt-offering. “

It is interesting that while David pleads with God to forgive him and to restore to him a clean heart, he shows it has nothing to do with a blood sacrifice. This shows the trusting human response to God when after we have sinned. And the truly righteous God we serve who needs no middle man to stand for us as an advocate. Our Creator Himself is our Savior and the only one who can forgive sin. 

Mic 7: “18 Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. 19 You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”

Nineveh: In the story of Jonah, the people of Nineveh put on sackcloth and repented from their sins after Jonah told them of the forthcoming destruction of their city. Then God repented of the wrath that he had towards them and forgave them, though it angered Jonah:

Jon 3: “6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh: “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.” 10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.”

Jon 4:”1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. 2 And he prayed unto YHVH, and said, I pray thee, O YHVH, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.”

Are babies born sinners?

This belief, one of the most damning of them all, places sin in the genetics which cannot be overcome. It takes sin out of the realm of acting and places it in our flesh. In the case of Cain, above, when Elohim spoke to him, he was already angry and ready to kill his brother. But that thought and attitude was not sin, he was reminded to overcome the tendency to do evil. When we blame ourselves or others for what we or they think, then we are missing the entire picture. Sin is what happens after the temptation. 

How to stop smoking! Just do it? 

One desires to stop smoking (I am not referring to smoking here as sin). 

The urge is extreme. “Just let me have that next cigarette.” But you resist it this time. The urge gets stronger, You stop for two weeks, then someone lights up and offers you a rolled cigarette. This time you light up and enjoy it, but then you feel ashamed, but you don’t give up. You try again. Two months later the same thing happens, and you hate yourself for your weakness, but you determine to try again. Two years later the urge is a little less though still desirable, and you have learned to stay away from people at work who are taking a smoke break. Avoidance.

Ten years later, the smell of tobacco still affects you, but you have learned to resist and to avoid it. And now you are no longer a smoker. So good for you! Some people never muster up the courage to quit, and some don’t want to quit. But this is about choices and change. You can do anything, almost, that you set your mind to do!

What about words? What about an angry temper and cussing? If words unjustly hurt people, are they classified as sin? If cussing makes us look weak and evil, with no self-control, then maybe start a cuss jar. Put money into it each time. When it adds up, give it to charity. Turn something bad into something good, and if it hurts enough, maybe you will see a change. 

So, I believe that the evil inclination–the temptation to do things that are wrong, is not sin. It is what you do with it. And as to Original Sin, no baby is destined to hellfire without sprinkling. We die for our sins, not for our tendencies! 

May your path to the Divine Image be successful,

Please subscribe to my blog. like and comment when you have an opinion. It really helps.

Ariella Golani

Elohim: Let US Make Man? Part 2

Posted by

3

In my last article (see here), we discussed the singularity of God in the name Elohim. In Genesis 1:1, though Elohim is a plural word and can be plural in the case of judges or Kings, false gods or noblemen, in the case of creation the use of Elohim is singular shown clearly by the singular masculine verbs that accompany this name. 

Artist rendition from: https://www.kilkennychristianassembly.com/news/what-is-man/

However, when we get to Genesis 1:26, something seems to change in the fact that Elohim says, “let US make man in OUR image, after Our likeness.” How can this be? And what might this mean? For the previous acts of creation, the masculine singular is used for all the verbs that show God acting, showing that He acted as a singular person. So how do we suddenly switch from singular to plural?

Before we get into this discussion, let us look at Who actually performed the creation of mankind. Is this described in singular or plural. See Genesis 1:27-28:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them…”

(In the above verses I have highlighted the English verbs and the possessive pronoun followed by a singular noun: “his own image” and will highlight them in the Hebrew as well.) 

27 וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ 

זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃

The word בָּרָא is a verb signifying that the action was done by a singular masculine character. The word is used 3 times in verse 27 above. 

28 וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים

In verse 28 we see highlighted the verbs “and blessed” וַיְבָרֶךְ (singular masculine), “and said”וַיֹּאמֶר (singular masculine). We see בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם  (in his own image) also used in masculine singular, even though in verse 26 it uses the plural “our image and likeness.” 

So the entire chapter is consistent in that one person is doing the actual creating, blessing and speaking. Yet verse 26 shows Elohim speaking to someone as if to include them in the creative process. How can this be? 

In my research, I have found answers such as: “He was speaking to the angels.” And yet man kind was not created in the image of the angels, though they do take part in working between Heaven and earth. We see them working with Balaam when he was instructed that he could not speak other than what God put in his mouth. There are many Biblical examples of angel messengers working for mankind. But to say that the angels helped at that moment in the creation of man is denied in the rest of Genesis 1, for God acted alone. 

So who was Elohim speaking to? And one more question that comes from thinking outside the box of right at that time. Could it be that the creation of man was not complete at the time when he was formed of the dust of the ground? Was there something more for which the angels would participate? Or was God speaking to the man he was creating? Now, I know this seems strange. How could a man participate in his own creation?

Could it be that God was referring to the choices Adam and Eve would have to make at a later time? We know that man’s character was not formed until given the choice of which of the two trees he would eat from. Obviously, by eating of the forbidden tree, man was now subject to live with temptation. If he had abstained, he would have not had this nature. So in a way, Adam chose the evil tree and figured the destiny and weaknesses of mankind. I think this is what the verse means. And the angels also have a part to play in our lives even today, though we usually do not sense them. 

Was God speaking to the dust from which He formed the man? Was the image of the ground part of what man was formed? That seems a bit odd, if we think about it, but it makes some sense, and if he created everything else in the creation by speaking, why would he not be able to speak our DNA into the dust that formed us. And asking the dust to cooperate, though that seems a little weird, might just factor in if we think about it. And speaking of dust, we do have an earthly nature so He could have been speaking to the dust as well. So I have given two possibilities, and before you wipe this idea away, give it some thought. Can God animate anything he wants to? Obviously, He did animate the dust, for out of it he created a living soul. Did He need to ask permission for cooperation? 

Just some thoughts to ponder, but you will not find that the name Elohim when used for the Creator is ever accompanied by plural verbs in the entire Tanakh. 

I am happy to read your comments if you want to submit them. Also please like and share, it helps to get the word out!

Ariella Golani

Elohim–God, or Gods? Part 1

Posted by

10

And what about Human Mediation?

Created by ChatGPT

In Exodus 32 we find the children of Israel pleading with Aaron to make them “gods” to go before them. They had been waiting for Moses to come down from the Mountain of God (Sinai) for several weeks and had grown tired of waiting. Their faith in what they had experienced seeing the lightning and hearing the thunderous voice of God was now weak, and apparently they were accustomed to having a visible, tangible god that they could experience in human terms. We see the same humanistic need for a touchable, feel-able God today in many religions. The idea of a God that is beyond comprehension is outside the scope of people’s understanding, it always has been. I want to get back to this idea, but first let us examine something that most versions of the Bible have wrong to my understanding. 

In verse 4, in the passage where Aaron has made the requested golden calf, we see words that the majority of Bible translations claim to say: “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.”

But it was not two or more calves. It was a single golden calf, so why is it referred to in the plural? Maybe a good look at the Hebrew will help us:

וַיִּקַּ֣ח מִיָּדָ֗ם וַיָּ֤צַר אֹתוֹ֙ בַּחֶ֔רֶט וַֽיַּעֲשֵׂ֖הוּ עֵ֣גֶל מַסֵּכָ֑ה וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ אֵ֤לֶּה אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֶעֱל֖וּךָ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃

For those who do not read Hebrew, the highlighted words אֵ֤לֶּה אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ can be translated as singular or plural. The first word “ele” is a participle that defines the word that follows, and can mean either “these” or “this” in English. The world “Elohim” is plural and is rendered “Elohecha” in this case, which is still plural but shows possession by adding the “cha” on the end. But why would something that is clearly singular in nature (a golden calf) be called “gods” rather than “god”? This stems from the use of the word “Elohim” and a common misunderstanding of what it means. When used for the God of the Universe, it is often understood in Christianity to refer to the “Triune Godhead.” But in the case of the Golden Calf, it is clearly one object. So does this lead to the idea that the calf was really more than one calf? Or does it help us to understand that the Eternal YHVH who is also called Elohim is not several entities, but One Entity with many aspects? I won’t go into defining God here, He is beyond comprehension to our human minds. But we do know that He is everywhere, He is all knowing, No secrets can be hidden from Him. He hears, sees, speaks, loves, judges….just to specify a few aspects. 

It is true that in the Bible there are times when Elohim is used to indicate human judges, leaders, or false gods. But in the case of the golden calf, it is clearly used in the singular as well as in the case of the Creator and His dealings. By the way, in Genesis 1:1 Christians claim that Elohim was all three persons creating mankind. But if you understand Hebrew and do not go to the English for understanding, you will see the following:

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

“In the beginning, Elohim (God) created the heavens and the earth.” 

(The words “in the beginning, are also misunderstood, but that is for another time since we need to focus on the highlighted words)

In Hebrew, biblical or modern, the words that accompany the noun, in this case “Elohim” must show whether it is expressed as singular or plural and feminine or masculine. In this instance, the word that precedes Elohim is bara בָּרָ֣א: “He created” or brought forth (masculine singular). 

To say that Jesus was in the beginning with God creating the universe, as is declared in John 1;1-3, does not fly when you look deeply into what is really said in the original Hebrew text of Genesis. 

If we look at other verses where Elohim is used in the plural, maybe we will see that the verbs, adjectives, participles, etc. verify the plurality of these verses. Here is one example: 

Psa 97:7 “Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.” In Hebrew:

 יֵבֹשׁוּ כָּל־עֹבְדֵי פֶסֶל הַמִּתְהַלְלִים בָּאֱלִילִים הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ־לוֹ כָּל־אֱלֹהִים׃

The highlighted words say “worship him all ye elohim” referring to the false gods mentioned in the verse.  Note the obvious plural in the English rendition. (Above) And to help simplify the words הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ־לוֹ  where (Hishtavu), the masculine plural is used in qualifying the word “elohim” which is used for the idols or false gods.

There are several more examples in the Bible where Elohim is used for angels, leaders, judges, wicked or righteous leaders, etc. 

I promised in the first paragraph that we would touch on the unfathomable nature of the Divine. Really there are no words other than what the Bible itself says. When Moses asked Yehovah to reveal Himself, Elohim told him a few things about himself:

Exo 34:6-7: ” And YHVH passed by before him, and proclaimed, YHVH, YHVH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in loving-kindness and truth, 7 keeping loving-kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.”

Basically that is all that was given for a definition as far a character goes. Perhaps that is enough for humanity other than knowing all the other things that describe the activity of the Almighty as revealed in Scripture. Can it be enough? It has to be!

Let us not raise another golden calf and claim that these be our god’s that have led us or saved us from the wrath of the Eternal! Or that these are the ones who deserve to lead us because they are like us, and we can understand them, and God forbid we claim that God needed a human to help him understand what people need! No! There is no one standing beside the Eternal in Heaven telling Him what humanity needs, nor is there (like some in Judaism claim) a famous Rabbi who has an office next to God in Heaven–someone who answers emails when we need instruction! 

May I ask what science people study that denies the Bibles clear instructions to not communicate with the dead? The belief in communication with the supernatural and out-of-body experiences comes from ancient pagan cults and is with us today in many religions including, sadly, some sects of Judaism. 

Kabbalah goes against much of what the Bible says, it includes spiritualistic practices including communication with the dead. See the following statement from Kabbalahexperience.com: 

“It has long been decided in Jewish law that talking with the dead (by oneself or through a medium) is only prohibited if you think that the dead body is in itself the conduit to the discussion. If one is communicating with the soul of the deceased, it is permissible.” But what does the Bible say?

Deu 18:10 “There shall not be found among you, he that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, that uses divination, that uses auguries, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, 11 or a charmer, or one that inquires of a spirit of Python, or a soothsayer, or one that consults the dead. 12 For every one that does these things is an abomination to Yehovah, and because of these abominations Yehovah thy God doth dispossess them (the nations) from before thee.”

If, as I am asserting, our Creator is all knowing and all compassionate, forgiving and just and does not allow evil into his Kingdom, then why do we need human mediation? After all, He is the one with the manufacturer’s warranty on the universe!

For an unshakable faith,

Ariella