Scroll to Scroll:

Todays Parsha #48: Shoftim (judges)

PART 1: THE LAST AND CURRENT TORAH PORTIONS
ANSWERS TO LAST WEEKS STUDY QUESTIONS (Reeh):
1) In this Torah portion there is, at least in my opinion, the number one lie told by antimissionaries to discourage Jews from following Yshua. What do you think that lie is
and how do we discredit it?
31

This is not the way to treat Yahweh your God. For in honor of their gods
they have done everything detestable that Yahweh hates; yes, in honor of their
gods, they even burn their own sons and daughters as sacrifices!'
(Deuteronomy 12:31 NJB)
The general lie is to link the crucifixion and resurrection of Yshua in
contradistinction to the ban on human sacrifice above and the corollary to that ban
which is here
16

'Parents may not be put to death for their children, nor children for parents,
but each must be put to death for his own crime. (Deuteronomy 24:16 NJB)
But immediately the lie should be apparent, because neither of these Scriptures
applies to Yshua as Messiah. This is because of a variety of reasons.
First, Yshua is an OFFERING, not a sacrifice, a QORBAN and not a generalized
ZEBKHA. And QORBAN with a human is allowed for Messiah and only Messiah. It
is Yshuas life that is poured out through his blood that in this one case allows for
atonement, as Isaiah says
10

It was Yahweh's good pleasure to crush him with pain; if he gives his life
as a sin offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his life, and through
him Yahweh's good pleasure will be done. 11 After the ordeal he has endured,
he will see the light and be content. By his knowledge, the upright one, my
servant will justify many by taking their guilt on himself. 12 Hence I shall
give him a portion with the many, and he will share the booty with the mighty,
for having exposed himself to death and for being counted as one of the
rebellious, whereas he was bearing the sin of many and interceding for the
rebellious. (Isaiah 53:10-12 NJB)
This Supreme Qorban in no way lifts the ban on REGULAR HUMANS dying for
each others sins. I cannot die for your sins, or you mine, but Yshua can die for both
of our sakes. The word in Hebrew is ASHAM, referring to sin or guilt offering.

Second, we must also bear in mind there are aspects of Yshuas offering that are
utterly unique to him, never happened before and never will happen again, so the one
exception in all human history does NOT disprove the rule.
Third, the QORBAN aspects over ZEBKHA are given in the NT here
(Heb 9:25) Neither (was it necessary) that he should offer himself many times as
the high priest entered every year into the sanctuary with blood not his own: (Heb
9:26) otherwise, he must have suffered many times since the commencement of
the world; but now in the end of the world, he has once offered himself in a selfsacrifice to abolish sin.

26

Notice the emphasis on he has ONCE offered himself, meaning you and I cannot offer
ourselves up in this manner, nor can anyone else do this in the future for us and even
Yshua himself will NOT do this a second time for us! In short, there is no linkage
between these Torah passages banning human sacrifice and what Yshua did for us on the
torture stake.
2) What title is here exclusive to Israel but is later extended to the Gentiles in the NT
under certain circumstances?
AM SEGULAH (14:2) = treasured people, a very special designation for Israel.
However, Shaliach Keefa in 1 Peter 2:6-10 extends the equivalent status also to Torah
observant Gentiles who are coming into the covenant through Yshua
(1Pe 2:6) For it is said in the Scripture, "Behold, in Tsiyon I lay a chosen and
precious stone for the head of the corner; and whoever believes in him will not be
ashamed." (1Pe 2:7) On you therefore who believe is this honor conferred: but to
them who do not believe (1Pe 2:8) "he is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense."
And they stumble at it because they believe not the Word from where they were
appointed.
(1Pe 2:9) But you are an elect race, officiating as priests of the Kingdom; a Set Apart
people, a redeemed congregation; that you should proclaim the praises of him who
called you out of darkness to his precious light: (1Pe 2:10) who formerly were not
counted as a people but now are the people of Elohim; and also, there were (once) no
mercies on you but now mercies are poured out upon you.
But with that status also comes the same obligations that are required of a native born
Israelite, since the rules of Deuteronomy 14 apply doubly to priests as they do to regular
Israelites regarding purity and kosher laws.

3) This week we saw a classic example of a Rabbinic fence where the command to not
boil a goat in its mothers milk was excessively and unjustifiably extended to apply to
not ever having any milk with any meat products. But what was the very first
Rabbinic fence in history and who did it?
The answer is either Adam or Eve, depending on your point of view or perhaps even
both of them are culpable. Here is the original command
15

Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to
cultivate and take care of it. 16 Then Yahweh God gave the man this
command, 'You are free to eat of all the trees in the garden. 17 But of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat; for, the day you eat of
that, you are doomed to die.' (Genesis 2:15-17 NJB)
And here is the fence that grew out of it
Now, the snake was the most subtle of all the wild animals that Yahweh God
had made. It asked the woman, 'Did God really say you were not to eat from
any of the trees in the garden?' 2 The woman answered the snake, 'We may
eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. 3 But of the fruit of the tree in the
middle of the garden God said, "You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain
of death." ' (Genesis 3:1-3 NJB)
So the FENCE was not to TOUCH the fruit. Abba YHWH did not prohibit touching,
only eating. And yet one of these two people thought they would be smart by
adding the ban on touching the fruit. The human logic of course was that if one
doesnt TOUCH the fruit, one isnt going to be guilty of EATING it. However, this
backfired.
4) If you know the answer to #3, tell me what the result of this fence was
according to the Torah.
Because Eve thought she should die from TOUCHING the fruit, she is shocked
when touching it doesnt kill her. The implication was the serpent knew this
would happen, being the craftiest creature in the Garden. When Eve does not die
from touching the fruit, she reasons it must be okay to EAT it, which in turn does
make her mortal and proves the serpent a liar, Ye shall surely NOT die and yet
she does and will.
Abba YHWH is smarter than us. His Torah is perfect (Psalm 19:7) and doesnt
need our help to fix it. Either Adam or Eve thought they knew better and even
if they meant well by adding a do not touch prohibition it doesnt matter. Once
we fail to see where the Abba YHWH part ends and the man part begins we invite
disobedience and therefore death.

5) What is yet another example of a major instruction being altered for the sake of a
different audience/situation yet not contradicting the original rules?
With respect to the omer count, Leviticus 23 specifies having the priest wave the
omer, but Deuteronomy 16 does not. The Omer/Shavuot instructions here seem
geared for the tasks strictly relating to a regular Israelite whereas the version of
this chag in Leviticus 23:14-15 is including the obligations of the priests and
Levites.
AND NOW FOR THIS WEEKS PORTION
1) Meaning of this weeks Torah portion and summary of contents:
Shoftim means judges and Deuteronomy 16:17 begins with the command to
appoint them. The Torah had suggested that these courts had to be established to
resolve general disputes (Exodus 21:22, 22:8) but only here do we find the specific
command to set these courts up in every city, probably because prior to this time they
were not close to being settled in the land. Other warnings to kill idolaters in their
midst follow along the lines of Deuteronomy 13 but lacking the provision that they do
so even if predicted signs and wonders come true from the idolaters mouth. Still
other restatements of how courts should issue rulings, the roles of witnesses and the
residing of the Levites with each tribes territory follow. Various other legal matters
relating specifically to accidental death and serious injury are addressed in the
remainder of the portion with a small break dedicated to rules of war.
2) Parsha (English-Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9). This week we will read the entire
portion.
3) Play by Play commentary where appropriate.
4) Point out key Hebrew words/terms. Color Commentary:

Shoftim veshotrim titen-lecha bechol-she'areycha asher Yahweh

Eloheycha noten lecha lishvateycha veshafetu et-ha'am mishpat
tsedek.
Lo-tateh mishpat lo takir panim velo-tikach shochad ki hashochad
ye'aver eyney chachamim visalef divrey tsadikim.

NATAN (16:18) = set up, establish but also has a double meaning of deliver in a bad
sense, such as delivering up an enemy to the sword. Ironically, this same word can also
mean save, but what I find interesting is this sense of if you dont SET UP judges you
face being DELIVERED UP to chaos.
SHOFTIM (16:18) = judgesbut also might include law enforcement or police to
support that administrative structure.
NOTEYN LECHALISH VATEYCHA (16:18) = according to all your tribes. This is
interesting commentary from www.bible.ort.org:
Since members of one tribe may not go to the court of another (Sanhedrin 16b).
Therefore, even if there are two tribes in a city, each must have its own court (Tosafoth
ibid. s.v. Shoftim). Some translate this verse, 'for all your tribes [and] in all your
settlements' indicating that besides the city courts, there must also be tribal courts
(Ramban). Others translate it, 'in all the settlements that God....is giving you for your
tribes' (Saadia).
My personal take is that there was one infrastructure for ALL tribes, or the system could
not work. However, it can be said that within that overarching structure there was a
process through which a person reported to their tribal elders first and then those elders
took it to the high court. This seems to have been the case with the daughters of
Zelophehad as they reported their case to their tribal leaders first, who then took it to
Moshe in their presence.
SHOCHAD (16:18) = bribe. But this word can also mean gift and need not just be a
quid pro quo cash payment. Any kind of consideration, product or service could sway a
judge.
NATAH (16:19) = pervert but literally, stretch out justice. The sense is that true
justice is a perfect form and to NATAH it is to distort or weaken it by diluting it,
stretching it into another shape.
TZEDEK TZEDEK (16:20) = perfect justice. Like the phrase SHALOM SHALOM in
Isaiah, the double occurrence of this word acts as a double amplifier, hence perfect
justice is the intended reading. A more dynamic equivalent expression to express the
metaphor in English better might be justices justice, or kind of like how we say hes a
mans man. The same word TZEDEK can also mean honesty, since all true justice is
based on honest accounts before judges, and that honesty then leads to the next meaning
of TZEDEK, which is righteousness.
SANAY (16:22) = hates. This is the same word used by Yshua when he explains that
compared to the love we should have for Abba YHWH, love of family looks like hatred
by comparison. I find it also interesting that SANAY sounds close to SINAI and
SANAY is talked of in connection with idolatry. So SINAI had Abba YHWHs proper
revelation but Abba YHWH SANAY (hates) it when Israel goes after other gods.

MATSEVAH (16:22) = pillar. I am currently researching this words relationship to a

synonym, AMMUD, which means standing structure and therefore pillar, column.
The word AMMUD seems to have a specialized usage as Pillars of Time, and for more
information on that aspect, please see The Star Catalogue of the Prophet Job under
Teachings and then select Free Teachings. In any case AMMUD seems to have a
more positive connotation in many cases that MATSEVAH does not, but on the other
hand there are times where MATSEVAH is described in neutral or even praiseworthy
language, so my research in this aspect continues.
SEH (17:1) = sheep or goat. SEH actually means both sheep and goat, so the responsible
thing to do is simply to list both when that word appears by itself without further
clarification. Hebrew does have other words that are specific to each such as TALEH
(male lamb/ram) and GEDI (goat).
VAYALECH VAYAAVOD ELOHIM ACHERIM VAYISHTACHU LAHEM VE-LASHEMESH O-LA-YAREACH O-LE-CHOL TSEVA HA-SHAMAYIM ASHER LOTZIVITI (17:3) = By going after and worshipping or bowing down to the sun, the moon
or other heavenly bodies whose worship I have forbidden. A restatement of Deuteronomy
4:19-20 but stronger this time. Abba YHWH clearly doesnt want us to follow after the
sun, moon or stars, which is why all His cycles are in darkness, when the sun, moon and
stars literally get out of the way.
This is especially true of the moon, as the conjunction (darkness) ends the old month and
sunset ends that old months last day, with the next month beginning right afterwards,
also in darkness. Incidentally, the year also literally ends in darkness. The last Hebrew
monthwhether 1 or 2 Adaris derived from an ancient Canaanite word that means
darkness so the darkness month ends and spring comes right afterwards.
NAKUN (17:4) = it is established (firmly agreed to). The Hebrew word here means it is
agreed to, which suggests a process of interrogating witnesses before reaching a
conclusion.
AL PI SHNAYIM EDIM O SHLOSHAH EDIM YUMAT HAMET LO YUMAT AL PI
ED ECHAD (17:6) = Upon the word (literally mouth) of two witnesses or three
witnesses will the accused be put to death, but no one is put to death through the
testimony of only one witness. This may appear to contradict other statements in
Deuteronomy 18 and 19 (out of the mouths of two witnesses every word shall be
established), but it really doesnt.
Rather, it explains the full process for what other verses just summarize. The two
witnesses must agree with one another for the word to be established. However, if three
witnesses see a crime and the third witness disagrees with the previous two witnesses,
then the testimony is not accepted until two additional witnesses are found. In other
cases, it may be shown or proven that the third witness is lying by another line of
evidence, thus restoring the testimony of the first two witnesses.

DARASH (17:9) = seek, inquire but also has the sense of to learn. This is where we
get the idea of DRASHING (studying/comparing) and MIDRASH. Notice here that the
plan for Moshes being replaced as the inquirer is put on the books here, because he
will die soon.
AL-PI HATORAH ASHER YORUCHA VE-AL HA-MISHPAT ASHER-YOMRU
LECHA TAASEH LO TASUR MIN HA-DAVAR ASHER YAGIDU LECHA YAMIN
USMOL (17:11) = Upon the (verbal) terms of the Torah which they teach you, and
according to the judgment they give you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the
word (davar) that they give you, neither to the right nor the left. It is important to note
that these oral rulings were not themselves a separate body of Oral Lawthey were
simply verdicts given after interpreting the WRITTEN TORAH.
However, in a broader sense, one need not only rely on judges for the everyday and
ordinary interpretation of Torah that is meant to be taught at a family level (Deuteronomy
6:4-7; 30:10-12) and therefore it is not the case that judges or rabbis rule over most
family matters, but the exception of course is in the event of a serious crime or violation
that requires their expertise. Otherwise, parents teach and discipline their children and so
on.
Finally, the case of Zelophehads daughters bears this out, as once more it seems they
deliberated within their family group, then to their tribal elders and then to Moshe, who
appealed it to Father Yah.
VELO YARBEH LO NASHIM (17:17) = and to not multiply many wives. Literally,
and not let many. In one sense, this verse means to not have a ton of wives but it never
explains what too many is. That is why I prefer to interpret this as a command to have
ONE wife only because after all, to go from one wife to two is to MULTIPLY times two!
This is of course my opinion but to be fair sources like Sanhedrin 21b set the limit for
Israelite kings to have no more than 18 wives, in which case Solomon is clearly in
violation of that standard, so if the later ruling was done to make what the kings did
more acceptable, it doesnt seem to have worked IMHO.
One thing that is certain is that even if the case could be made that polygamy was
allowed during the times of David and Solomon, after the time of the Major Prophets the
practice seems to have fallen out of favor as the ideal of monogamy took hold. This is
perhaps due to the frequent connection of idolatry to spiritual adultery, i.e. showing favor
to more than one mighty one and not being exclusively faithful to Abba YHWH.
As detailed in the AENT article Basar Echad, polygamy was a concession made for a
time because Abraham should not have listened to Sarah and went into Hagar. This set up
a situation where Abraham had broken the command to raise up a son from your own
loins referring to him and Sarah and yet Abba YHWH still had to keep His Word that all

of Abrahams line would be blessed, but ONLY Isaacs line inherited Canaan whereas
Ishmael and others went to other territories.
MISHNEH (17:18) = copy, repetition. Though this text makes it perfectly clear this is a
WRITTEN copy, the rabbis use this title of repetition for their ORAL LAW that
becomes the Talmud.
MISHPAT (18:3) = the dues, meaning what the priests are owed by Israel. However,
the same word means judgments, so it is from the ruling of Abba YHWH that priests
are given their payments for their service. The priests are also put in charge as judges in
halachic matters, and judges SHOFTIM comes from this same root.
HA LEVI (18:6) = the Levite. The Rabbis are uncertain if this means a priest or if .latter.
Some have pointed out that the reference to service divisions in 18:7 applies to priests
alone, but the fact is the non-priestly Levites were also divided into 24 divisions as well
(1 Chronicles 25). 18:7 is also helpful in showing that divisions of priests and Levites
were in effect from Moshes time, not just when David named them, and this accords
with 1 Chronicles 24:19 that the divisions were done according to the direction of their
ancestor Aaron. This idea is confirmed with the language, whose turn it is to serve
before YHWH or like all his fellow Levites who stand before YHWH. Compare with
2 Chronicles 35:4-5 and Ezra 6:18.
VESHERET BESHEM YAHWEH ELOHAV KECHOL ECHAV HA-LEVIIM
HAOMEDIM SHAM LIFNEY YAHWEH (18:7) = he can then serve before Yahweh
his Elohim just the same as his fellow Levites whose turn it is to serve before the face of
Yahweh. This shows the priestly system fully up and functioning even while Moshe was
alive. Although the final official codification of the priests into 24 divisions was not done
until Davids day (1 Chronicles 24), the Scripture there tells us that the division David
did was based on the instructions of Aaron. This line in Deuteronomy may be the
closest thing we have to seeing the result of those instructions in action. It certainly does
seem to suggest there are more than just 2 divisions of priests rolling around.
QESEM (18:10) = divination. This form of divination involves sticks, headless arrows or
lots (Ezekiel 21:21), QESEM actually means divide up in ancient Canaanite and
Aramaic. It should be noted however that there is a kosher version of QESEM, in that the
priest had Urim and Thumim (which has divisions, although sticks are not involved) and
the apostles cast lots in Acts 1. On the other hand, pagans like the Romans also did the
evil kind, casting lots for Yshuas clothing. Whether QESEM is good or bad depends on
who is doing it and the context for its use. It is interesting to note that the two most
common words for divination have different emphases. NACHASH, which also means
serpent, tells us most divination comes from the serpent or Satan. QESEM however
relates to HOW the divination is done. Interestingly enough, Bible.ort.org translates
QESEM as stick divination. While I would not take my translation of the word to that
specific level because QESEM suggests other methods not including sticks also, I do
nevertheless understand why they went in that direction.

18:11 has: CHABAR to tie, as in a magical knot, or cast a spell. Watch out Mr.
Potter! Also SHAAL is medium, from a root to ask after, consult, or inquire after the
dead. Obviously Israel was only to inquire after Abba YHWH. SHAUL is of course
asked of El. VEDORESH EL HAMETIYM (one who calls on/consults the dead).
These words are synonyms.
NAVI MIKIRBECHA MEARCHEYCHA KAMONI YAKIM LECHA YAHWEH
ELOHEYCHA ELAV TISHMAUN (18:15) = from your own midst will Yahweh raise
up a prophet like me from among your brethren, and it is to him that you must listen.
Bible.ort.org suggests this means that the prophet must be born in Jerusalem, but this
divorces the Prophet as a title of Messiah, which is how it is understood by the
Immerser and the Pharisees in the NT, since Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, where
Yshua was. Ironically the discussion in Yochanan 7 has Yshua being known as a
Nazarene used against him since they assume thats his birthplace. There is also no
indication that Jerusalem is referred to in this prophecy although it clearly existed under
pagan control in Moshes time. The Amarna Tablets have these Canaanite kings
complain to Egypt that Haibru are attacking them in about 1400 BCE. Ancient
Babylonian records also call it Uru-summu and record that the city was dedicated to
Asherah.
KECHOL ASHER SHAALTA MEIM YAHWEH ELOHEYCHA BECHOREV
BEYOM HA-KAHAL LEMOR LO OSEF ET-KOL YAHWEH ELOHAY VEET HAESH HA-GEDOLAH HAZOT LO-EREH OD VELO AMUT (18:16) = all this is
because you asked Yahweh your Elohim at Horeb, saying: We cannot listen to the voice
of Yahweh our Elohim anymore! We cannot look at this great fire anymore! We do not
want to die!
This is remarkable because what this text is saying is that one of the reasons Messiah
came to be in human formagain he is the Prophetis that Israel couldnt bear to hear
the voice of the Father! The text then continues
VAYOMER YAHWEH ELAY HEYTIVU ASHER DIBERU (18:17) = then said
Yahweh: The thing they have spoken is well and good. But the reason is given a whole
new slant based on what we just saw. Its not just that Abba YHWH is pleased that they
recognize the sanctity of His VoiceHe is also pleased because this gives Him another
reason to send His Son Yshua to the earth! Next line continues the thought about the
Prophet.
NAVI AKIM LAHEM MIKEREV ACHEYHEM KAMOCHA VENATATI DEVARAY
BEFIV VEDIBER ALEYHEM ET-KOL ASHER ATSAVENU (18:18) = I will set up a
prophet (understood to be THE PROPHET here and in 18:15AGR) for them from
among their brethren, just as you (MOSHEH!) are. I will place My Word in his mouth
and he will declare all that I command him. So this is the opposite of the false prophet in
Deuteronomy 13this prophet speaks the words Abba YHWH commands of him and is
just like Moshe. But the next line is also very revealing

VEHAYAH HA-ISH ASHER LO-YISHMA EL-DEVEREY ASHER YE-DABER BISHMI ANOCHI ADROSH MEIMO (18:19) = and it will come to pass that anyone does
not listen to the WORD (singular!) he declares in MY NAME I will punish him. This
strongly implies harsh punishment for those who will not heed the Prophet, or Messiah
Yshua, and that warning certainly came to pass. The word DARASH means seek after,
inquire after implies a judgment by witnesses, similar to how two angels were sent to
Sodom just before that city was destroyed. The text also points to a future time from here
when Abba Yahweh, rather than Israel, is directly killing sinners for disobeying His
Wordliterally! A similar warning is given regarding Yshua in angelic form, in Exodus
23:20-23.
Additional Note on Deuteronomy 18:15-19: The reference BEYOM HA-KAHAL, as
we discussed before but it bears repeating here, means day of the assembly. Israel was
already assembled beneath the mountain for about 5 days prior, and yet the text refers
to THE DAY, a singular day, which may be a hint that the day the Ten Commandments
were given fell on a Feast/Moed, and the timeline fits very well with that day being
Shavuot. Also in 18:19 we are told that Abba YHWH will directly punish a false prophet
under this statute, meaning He will kill them with His own hand rather than have the
community of Israel stone that person. I believe this is the first piece in a later trend
where capital punishment in many cases switches from the people to Abba YHWH to
administer, but this is a very wide topic that takes a long time to do justice.
ZID (18:20) = presumptuously. However, root means to seethe or boil, meaning they
are hot headed with their own arrogance and just say whatever they feel, whether Abba
YHWH said it or not to them.
ASHER YEDABER HANAVI BSHEM YAHWEH VELO YIHEYEH HADAVAR
VELO YAVO HU HADAVAR ASHER LO-DIBRO YAHWEH BEZADON DIBERO
HANAVI LO TAGUR MIMENU (18:21) = If a prophet predicts something in Yahwehs
Name and the prediction does not come to pass or become true, then the message was not
spoken by Yahweh. That prophet has spoken deceitfully and you must not fear him. So
again, here is the clarification needed to go with Deuteronomy 13s false prophet who
exhorts those to go after OTHER gods whereas a TRUE prophet of Abba YHWH speaks
IN HIS NAME AND THE SIGNS COME TRUE. If on the other hand Abba Yahwehs
name is invoked and the prophecy does not come true, that prophet is false.
TACHIN LECHA HA-DEREK (19:3) = Establish for yourselves a road. This is because
the refuge cities were all interconnected. Tradition tells us these roads were 32 cubits (48
feet) wide (Bava Batra, 100b).
VE-IM YARCHIV YAHWEH ELOHEYCHA ET-GVULECHA KA-ASHER NISHBA
LA-AVOTEYCHA VE-NATAN LECHA ET-KOL HA-ERETZ ASHER DIBER
LATET AVOTEYCHA (19:8) = And Yahweh your Elohim will expand your borders, as
he swore to your fathers, and He will give you the territory He promised them. In one
sense, we need to look David taking Jerusalem as the fulfillment of this prophecy, but it
is actually only a partial fulfillment of the last bastion of territory that is within the

10

modern state of Israels borders. However, if we look at what was promised to the
patriarchs in Genesis 15:18, this includes a much wider area all the way to the Euphrates
River, encompassing quite a few lands that are now under Arab control. So if you think
the struggle to control Israels borders is heated now, just wait until this prophecy is
fulfilled in its entirety, for that will mean setting the Middle East on fire. See Genesis
15:18-19 and Exodus 23:31.
REA (19:14) = neighbor, friend, this word also formed part of Jethros other name
REUEL (Friend of El) and Abraham was called Abba YHWHs friend by the same word.
Yshua in Matthew 5:43 uses the synonym QARIVAKH, derived from the word QRB, to
draw near. In fact this is the only word Yshua uses for neighbor and it also means
friend. The play on words tells us that everyone should be our friend and in friendship
all of humanity QARAB, draws near to one another and of course to Abba YHWH.
LO TASIG GVUL REECHA (19:14) = do not move your neighbors boundary marker.
In Deuteronomy 27:17 this act is officially cursed. Hosea 5:10 warns that Abba YHWH
will pour out curses like water upon those who do this sin. An interesting application of
this idea however came in a document called the Zadokite Fragment which protests the
removal of the ultimate ancestral boundaryMount Zion itselfby the wicked priest
who is probably Shimon the Hasmonean, in about 140 BCE. It reads as follows:
6

In accordance with the covenant which God established with the forefathers. In
order to pardon their sins, so shall God make atonement for them. 7 And on the
consummation of the period [[of the number]] of these years they shall no more
join themselves to the house of Judah, but shall every one stand up against his net.
8

The wall shall have been built, the boundary been far removed. 9 And
during all these years Belial shall be let loose against Israel, as God spake
through Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amos, saying: 'Fear and the pit and
the snare are upon thee, O inhabitant of the land.'
10

This means the three nets of Belial, concerning which Levi the son of Jacob
spake, by which he caught Israel and directed their faces to three kinds of
righteousness. 11 The first is fornication, the second is the wealth of wickedness,
the third is the pollution of the Sanctuary. 12 He that cometh up from this shall be
caught by that, and he that escapes from this shall be caught by that. (Zadokite
Fragment, 6:6-12, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha by R.H. Charles)
Note on Deuteronomy 19:21: When the eye for an eye language first appeared in
Exodus 23, we talked about how this was a kind of workers compensation, where
monetary values are assigned to various injuries, depending on extent, circumstances and
intentions. Here however the text is literal. A false accusation that is proven against a
brother has the literal punishment that was intended for the innocent fall upon deceiver.
So if it is shown someone was trying to frame another for murder, which would incur the
death penalty, then by the letter of this instruction the plotter is put to death. However, I
am not aware of a single Scriptural incident where this actually happened. This brings us

11

back to the wisdom of the previous line, 19:20, people will hear of it and be afraid
which turns out to be literally truejust the threat of this seems sufficient to deter it from
happening.
Note on Deuteronomy 20:2: The description of this priest seems to suggest that he was
specially designated to go to war with Israelkind of like Phinehas (Sotah 42a).
CHANAK (20:5) = dedicate, from where we get HANUKKAH. This word was used in
connection with the First Temple in 1 Kings 8:63. Also in a slightly altered form this is
CHANOK or Enoch.
UMI HAISH ASHER ERAS ISHA VELO LEKACHA (20:7) = and who is the man who
has become betrothed to a woman and not taken her (into his house)? This shows the two
stages of Hebrew marriage, first betrothal and then taking the woman into the mans
house, or marriage. By definition betrothals do not allow co-habitation or intimacy, but
the restrictions against adultery are just as binding as if they were living together.
LO TECHAYEH KOL-NESHAMA (20:16) = do not allow anyone to remain alive. The
rabbis interpret this as a last resortonly if they refuse an offer of peace, such as
described in Deuteronomy 20:10.
Note on Deuteronomy 20:19: While there are times that a scorched earth policy is
enjoined, in this case we have a bit of a pro-environment stance. The trees are only to be
destroyed if the enemy is thriving on their fruit. Otherwise the trees are not to be burned.
The difference between the two scenarios is that in the former (say like Sodom and
Gomorrah), the area is banned and to be completely destroyed and never rebuilt. But with
the Canaanite nations Israel will be displacing their lands and living in them and for that
reason it is enough to wait 5 years before eating the formerly Canaanite fruit.
ETHAN (21:4) = swift flowing stream. This is why the month of Tishri was originally
called by this name
All the men of Israel assembled themselves to King Solomon at the feast, in the
month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. (1 Kings 8:2 NAU)
So ETHANIM means flowing, because by its end the early rains come. The name was
later changed to Babylonian TISHRITU, or opening which may refer to fall harvest or
to the waters that were FLOWING (Ethanim) opening or going over their banks.
BAAR (21:9) = remove. However, the word actually means to burn away, consume in
fire, in other words to literally destroy the guilt or sin as if it were a living thing and in
similar fashion to how sacrifices are consumed on the altar.
Special Note on Deuteronomy 21:1-9: This is a stark reminder of the heavy
responsibilities of spiritual leaders. We live in a society where we quickly deflect blame.
This at first seems reflected in the Torah here when the elders of the nearest town to a

12

34rrmurdered corpse say, Our hands did not shed this innocent blood nor did our eyes
see it done. And yet, the next line, we see that these leaders still have make an offering
and ask officially for forgiveness of the crime that they didnt commit. The reason why is
to return some dignity to the victim, who deserves a sacrifice and apology in their honor.
Sometimes then it is not about the person who did the sin but it is about how the
righteous intercede on the part of the helpless, even when those same helpless ones are
beyond all aid. One way or another, leaders are responsible for what goes on under their
supervision, which makes it a heavier burden than it would be for the rank and file. The
sin also must be purged in this way so its consequences dont spread to the community at
large.
Torah Question of the Week:
In Deuteronomy 17:15 Abba YHWH predicts Israel will have a king after asking for
one. Why then, when they do ask for one, does Abba YHWH refuse them and tell
them a king brings only bad things?
END PART 1

13

Bonus Teaching!
The Gospel According to the Four Seasons:
So Close, So Close and Yet So Far
Heres a rare event for all of you: I have a bonus teaching with the phrase four seasons
in the title and it has nothing to do with the calendarof any kind. Really, I mean it. Not
about the Walking Dedicated Men or math use that sometimes leads to calendar either.
How is this possible, you may ask? Because the tag line here is not about the four
seasons of the year but instead is the name of a pop group led by Frankie Valli whose life
was recently featured in Broadway and on film in Jersey Boys. Since I spent about 1/3rd
of my life in the state above New Jersey (New York) and 2/3rds of my life up until 2013
in the state just below it (Pennsylvania), this is a pop reference I know extremely well.
And while Sinatra was from the Garden State too (Hoboken I understand), that was
before my time, whereas The Four Seasons, The Boss and Bon Jovi were much more
current for me. So while at first I was Born to Run later I found myself Living on a
Prayer, so to speak.
In fact, one time I actually tried to write a parody of Oh What a Night about Yshuas
birth mid-September back in 5 BC, our Messiah entered history, shepherds came, oh
what a night, but thats not what I mean by the Gospel according to the four seasons
either.
Or, some of you may remember the Purim Special where we talked about how the battle
against the famous 300 Spartans was led by none other Esthers husband, Xerxes the
First, because there I parodied another Four Seasons songGreece is the word, but
that doesnt apply here either. (I think that was actually a solo hit by Valli, but it still
counts).
Instead, the real clue is in the subtitle: So close, so close and yet so far, which is from My
Eyes Adored You, and if you never heard that song you are just too youngsorry. But
what is so close and yet so far you may be asking? That answer, my friends, is the point
of this entire bonus teaching.
As many of you know, I am on the mailing list for BAS, the Biblical Archaeology
Society, and once in a while they allow me to download a free e-book. This one had a
very intriguing title: Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus Life. So sure, I
snagged myself a free copy.
I began to read it in part for the express reason of seeing if I could post it to here because
BAS had done a lot of other exceptional research across the board even when they drew
conclusions different from my own. I have subscribed to their Biblical Archaeology
Review magazine for many years and really admired their work. Surely, I thought, this
would be another great PDF for the One Faith One People Ministries (make clearing
throat sound here) library and archive.

14

But now, after reading it, thats not going to happen. However, in saying that I should
also mention it wasnt all bad. In fact, of the five articles in the book, four of them were
pretty good, and two very good, but the fifth and last article killed it for me, just like one
unruly kid in class gets everyone else punished. To be fair though, let me give you all a
brief rundown of all the articles.
The first article, by Dr. Lawrence Myktiuk of Purdue University was called Did Jesus
Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible. In many ways this paralleled my own
research into the quest for the historical Messiah which was a main topic in my first book
Signs of the Cross and a DVD I did called The Yeshua of History.
What I particularly liked and admired about Dr. Myktiuks approach was that he had the
courage to admit that certain sources that are sometimes put forward as hard evidence by
believers do not pass muster. He particularly avoided more doubtful sources that allege to
write about Yshua in the 40s CE (by one guy called Thallus) and made reference to the
fact that if he doesnt list the source, its basically spurious. This to me showed balance of
thinking. He was not going to let his own faith get ahead of the evidence.
At the same time however, Myktiuk was not a skeptical minimalist either. When it came
time to discuss Josephus he avoided a major trap in my opinion. Many scholars writing
for magazines that cater to Biblical fundamentalists (for lack of a better word) tend to go
right to the overtly (and in my view OVERLY) Christian editing of the so-called
Testimonium, which I will quote in a moment, to prove not just Messiahs existence, but
imply the church kind of is now how it started off.
But instead of doing that, Myktiuk took actually my approach and discussed the
SECOND reference to Messiah in Josephus that most folks seem to have forgotten when
getting into the historical Messiah debate. And as it turned out, that second reference has
NEVER been questioned in terms of authenticity:
200

when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a

proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus
was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought
before them the brother of Yeshua, who was called Messiah, whose name was
Yaakov, and some others, [or some of his companions]; and, when he had
formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them
to be stoned: 201 but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens,
and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what
was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus
that he should act so no more, for what he had already done was not to be
justified; (Antiquities, 20:200-201)
Myktiuks analysis of this point was brilliant. By putting this reference out first, it
negated almost all the rhetoric against its more famous cousin, the Testimonium. His
point, which I totally agree with, is that even though Yeshua and Yaakov were common
names they were famous enough along with their followers to have Josephus add who

15

was called the Messiah to leave no doubt as to who was being talked about. So right
there, the accusation that Yshua never existed is disproved and the rest is just icing on
the cake.
Thats when Myktiuk brought out the more famous Testimonium and basically
concluded, as I did, that some of Josephus original words were still there, but others had
been added by a later editor. Below is my analysis of the Testimonium, with gray font
indicating the words were added later:
63

Now there was about this time Yeshua, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a
man; for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the
truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the
Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. 64 And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the
principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at
the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day,
because the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him; and the sect of Christians, so named from
him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities, 18:63-64)
Myktiuk then reviewed Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, among other historians,
and totally won his points I believe. This was an A++ in my book. Well played sir.
The second article, by Dr. Phillip King, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Boston
College was called Jesus Birthplace and Jesus Home, which explored a growing
scholarly dispute that denies Yshua was born in Bethlehem but was born in Nazareth,
because after all he was never called Yshua of Bethlehem.
Now granted, for me, I would rather not even dignify this question with any response at
all, given the fact it directly contradicts Matthew and Luke and implies spiritual politics
were behind altering the truth.
However, if I had to respond to this question in some fashion, this would not be the way
to go. The discussion Dr. King gives is terrific and clear but he ruins things near the end
by calling the Scripture account fiction. I think you guys know how I respond to that
kind of statement. I was, shall we say, not happy.
But then the very next line has Dr. King sound objective again, as if objectivity was
something he had for a while, misplaced it for a moment, and then found it once more.
He said simply, All of us should be enriched by our environment, not untouched by it.
So too in the time of Jesus. My purpose in this column is to illustrate how both Nazareth
and Bethlehem influenced Jesus.
Back in college that was what we would have called a no-duh moment, but sometimes it
had a less eloquent statement attached to it about a fictional detective having trouble
using the restroom, but I wont repeat it in mixed company, okay Sherlock?

16

In any case, Dr. King was correct, but did he really need to think about the fact that
people are influenced by their environment and that it is helpful to study both the birth
and childhood places of famous people to get a sense of their lives?
Still, I was so overjoyed with the first article and even fine with 90% of the second one I
am discussing here, that I thought overall this is great. I wanted to read more, so I did.
The third article was by Dr. Ken Dark of Oxford which, I must confess, is my favorite
university on the planet. I hear Oxford and my ears prick up with anticipation, and this
article asked a very interesting question: Has Jesus Nazareth House Been Found?
Dr. Dark did a masterful explanation of the complex archaeology going on in Nazareth
and he talks of it all in a very objective and honest way. He concludes:
Was this the house where Jesus grew up? Its impossible to say on archaeological
grounds. On the other hand, there is no good archaeological reason why such a
identification should be discounted. What we can say is this building is probably
where the Byzantine church builders believed Jesus had spent his childhood years
in Nazareth.
Very well done here toothe man is entitled to discuss his extensive experience and
render an opinion based on the current state of the evidence. And yet, he remains open in
case other evidence comes along to change his mind. Honestly, in this secular academic
world, I cant ask for more than that. Still feeling really good about this book!
Next up though, the fourth article was done clearly in the wake of massive public interest
in Dan Browns The Davinci Code. Dr. Birger A. Pearson, Professor Emeritus of
Religious Studies at the University of California at Santa Clara, authored a two part
contribution on the question of whether Yshua was ever married and if so, could his
bride have been Mary Magdalene.
However, by answering the first part NO, it was pretty clear how he would view the
second question. In concluding part 1 Dr. Pearson said:
Was Jesus married? Despite what we might read in the popular press, we have no
evidence in the New Testament or the apocryphal gospels that Jesus ever married.
Further, Jesus own teachings from his days as a prophet of the Kingdom of God
rule out the possibility that he could have been married to Mary Magdaleneor
to any other womanat that time.
Amen to that sentiment, but in part 2, Dr. Pearson told a related tale about why Mary
Magdalene had been unjustly labeled as a prostitute and had her identity conflated with
one, possibly two, other unnamed women in the Gospels. All of this I have heard many
times before but the way he wrapped the whole thing up was just stunning, a literary shot
across the bow of his critics or, at least thats now I imagine it to be. He said the
following:

17

But does this portrait of Mary as an early Church leader reflect historical reality?
Perhaps. One scholar has suggested that Mary may even be mentioned along with
a few other female leaders whom Paul sends greetings to in Romans 16:6, where
he writes: Greet Mary, who has worked very hard among you. But this must
remain speculative. It is true we have no reason to suspect that Mary was a
prostitute or the lover or wife of Jesus. But it is also true that if she was an apostle
to the apostles, the evidence for her role has successfully been suppressedat
least until now. As a result of the recent work of a number of scholars, Mary
Magdalenes apostolic role in early Christianity is getting a new hearing.
That, in my view, is more important than viewing her as Jesus wife.
So at this point, this free e-book is doing exceptionally well in my eyes. It is inevitable
that there will be some disagreement between a few details that are in this book and my
own personal research, as well as differences of opinion between the scholars themselves
sharing their research in this book. Some divergences are understandable, even healthy,
to the overall body of scholarly discussion.
But then, the last article came up, and my Qum-bai-yah Moment very quickly faded1.
The article was called Was Jesus Last Supper a Seder? I am not revealing the name of
this author, possibly for his own protection and so, to turn another pop culture saying on
its head, this time from the old Dragnet series, the names have been changedto protect
the guilty. Suffice to say, I didnt like what he had to say very much.
One thing on this topic I have observed over the last three decades: Almost any scholar
that asks Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder? has almost always decided the answer
must be no! Ive read too many professional papers and books on the subject to not
think this a significant if not overwhelming trend.
This author, as I am sure most of you have gathered by now, has also followed the trend
of denying the Last Supper as a seder, but his reasoning is simply not sound, although
this is not apparent as the essay opens.
It actually begins pretty well, with the scholar talking about that three Gospels directly
call the Last Supper a seder outright and that mainstream scholarship accepts it as such.
He even references one of the best known works on the subject2 painstakingly lists no
less than fourteen parallels between the Gospel accounts and the Passover seder. After
giving then a brief overview of the Jewish significance of the Great Feast, the author
them moves into attack mode where, to my mind, the holes in his argument become
1

I once asked a dear First Nations friend of mine if Qum-bai-yah was a real Native American song. He
said he wasnt sure but was curious why I asked. I answered and told him in ancient Aramaic the phrase
translates as QUM (rise) BYAH (in Yahweh), which puts a neat twist on the song. Someones praying
my Lord: Rise in Yah.
2
The name of the book is The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, by Joachin Jeremias, and in spite of its Catholic
sounding title, as our unnamed scholar admits, it lists no fewer than 14 details that link the Last Supper to
Passover.

18

rather apparent. First he references the controversial Jesus Seminar as sort of his brothers
in arms, when these folks called 78% of the Gospel data unreliable and unhistorical. I
hope you will pardon me if I dont accept that as evidence. In the past though, I argued
the positive side of that assessment in The Yeshua of History, viz., that not even these
hardline skeptics denied Yshuas existence and 22% of the Gospel data passed their
tests. Even so, the fact that there are other skeptics like this guy out there getting
published is not evidence that they are right, and thats my point.
But after this we see how the scholarly approaches begin to weather a bit. Watch this
kind of political style weaseling language in this paragraph:
Furthermore, several Judaic studies scholarsJacob Neusner is a leading
examplevery much doubt that rabbinic texts can be used in historical
reconstructions of the time of Jesus. But rabbinic literature is our main source of
information about what Jews might have done during their Seder meal in ancient
times. For reasons that are not entirely clear, other ancient Jewish sources,
such as Josephus and Philo, focus on what Jews did in the Temple when the
Passover sacrifice was offered, rather than on what they did afterward, when
they actually ate the sacrifice. Again, if we cannot know how Jews celebrated
Passover at the time of Jesus, then we have to plead ignorance, and we would
therefore be unable to answer our question.
I find this wording deceptive. Sorry to be harsh but theres no other nice word for what
this is. Lets see why as we review the gist of what he says.
1) There is some doubt among Jewish scholars about the extent of how we can
reconstruct 1st century CE seders in Israel, Neusner being one of them.
Problems: The term very much doubt I think is inaccurate, since most Jewish
scholars like Neusner whom he mentions believe in the authenticity of the Mishnah
and Talmud, and this is true even when mainstream historians find evidence the
tradition is wrong. The fact is, mainline Orthodox Judaism including the Chabad and
Hasidic branches put most of this tradition back in Moshes own hands at Mount
Sinai, so compared to those claims, saying that the rabbis dont put faith in their
traditions being right only 200-400 years after the fact is simply disingenuous. By
very much doubt without further clarification, I feel the entire point is inadequate.
At best, one might make an argument that not every detail in rabbinic seder can
always be proven to have been part of a first century Pesach, but in broad strokes the
a priori religious assumptions behind most Jewish scholars preclude them from
having the level of doubt this man alleges, and if he is sincere, he needs more
documentation to back it up, which he does not provide.
2) Rabbinic sources are our main resource for reconstructing the seder, which means
our level of doubt as to what they remember casts doubt on the entire historical
discussion.

19

Problems: First of all, there are written documents that circulated no later than 90
years in the worst case from when Yshuas ministry existed, and these are the
Gospels themselves, so why discount that out of hand when there is no proof they
are wrong? How can we posit that a bunch of Jews in first century Israel could not
provide accurate details about their own feasts that they have kept all their lives?
So on the one hand you have written evidence from Jews who were alive at the
time these things happened contrasted with Rabbinic tradition that comes AFTER
centuries have passed AND they are OUT of Israel, so we cant trust the more
ancient reliable sources? Really. Did logic take a holiday when I wasnt looking?
And by the way, the Gospels in many places provide additional details about what
Oral Law precepts were current in the first century.
Also the home seder is described in Exodus 12where the Israelites were still in
their houses before they were freed and everything is there including matzah,
bitter herbs and wine. Are we therefore really to believe that when such Torah
references match the Gospels that we cant prove the Gospels reliable?
3) Josephus and Philo dont focus on what happened at a home seder and therefore
we dont have confirmation from those eyewitnesses that we can use in a
probative way in regards to this question.
Problems: Lazy language. Notice that he doesnt say Josephus and Philo dont mention
the seder only they dont FOCUS on the seder. However, what Josephus and Philo do
tell us, even if NOT focused, is enough to confirm the details of the New Testament! But
here we see lack of focus being used as if they didnt mention seder at all, and the
conclusion is therefore we dont know anything about it. Let me show you just how
wrong this is:
423

So these high priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the
Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but
so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice, (for it is not
lawful for them to feast singly by themselves,) and many of us are twenty in a
company, 424 found the number of sacrifices was two hundred and fifty-six
thousand five hundred; 425 which, upon the allowance of no more than ten that
feast together, amounts to two million seven hundred thousand and two hundred
persons that were pure and holy. (The Jewish War, 6:423-425)
These are details about large groups of people or families feasting AWAY from the
Temple and after they get their lambs sacrificed. By the way, the Scripture confirms this
when disciples come to Yshua after already getting their lamb slain and ask on the actual
day of the 14th, Master, where do you want us to prepare the Passover lamb? Mark
14:12 actually tells us they ask on the 14th. Now lets look at Philo:
150

And there is another festival combined with the feast of the passover,
having a use of food different from the usual one, and not customary; the use,
namely, of unleavened bread, from which it derives its name. And there are
two accounts given of this festival, the one peculiar to the nation, on account of

20

the migration already described; the other a common one, in accordance with
conformity to nature and with the harmony of the whole world (Philo, The Special
Laws, 2:150)
147

But those who are in the habit of turning plain stories into allegory, argue
that the passover figuratively represents the purification of the soul; for they
say that the lover of wisdom is never practicing anything else except a
passing over from the body and the passions. 148 And each house is at that
time invested with the character and dignity of a temple, the victim being
sacrificed so as to make a suitable feast for the man who has provided it and
of those who are collected to share in the feast, being all duly purified with
holy ablutions. And those who are to share in the feast come together not as
they do to other entertainments, to gratify their bellies with wine and meat,
but to fulfill their hereditary custom with prayer and songs of praise. 149 And
this universal sacrifice of the whole people is celebrated on the fourteenth day of
the month, which consists of two periods of seven, in order that nothing which is
accounted worthy of honor may be separated from the number seven. (Philo, The
Special Laws, 2:147-149)
What do you think? Sounds like a pretty good description of a HOME BASED SEDER
doesnt it? Philo even got the foods right. Imagine that.
And finally, we should not forget, as this scholar seems to, that we have a good chain of
custody in several different pre-common era sources about how the seder evolved.
Following the trends in the Scripture, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Jubilees
record from ca. 150 BCE that the Passover offering was eaten in the Temple or in the
case of the Qumran community, their Sanctuary which replaced the Temple in their
minds.3 But since only men got to do this rite, it makes sense that other parts of the
sacrificed lamb would be brought home for the rest of their family to partake in,
especially when Jubilees says that every Israelite ate this offering.
As a result, it makes perfect sense that the home version of the after party would evolve
further until the first century CE, when it became completely predominant in Israel. By
the time of Philo, Josephus and of course Yshua himself therefore, it is seems very clear
and consistent that the Temple part now involved sacrificing the lamb and the home part
involved eating it according to the instructions of Exodus 12.
In other words, with a little effort we can most certainly reconstruct a home seder in first
century Israel and our most important facts are in the Scripture as well as knowing the
population endeavored to follow Torah.
And finally, this scholar doesnt seem to even attempt to use the NT as a historical
marker to what parts of Oral Tradition were around in the first century, because those
very debates are all over the Gospels.
3

Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 195 and the Book of Jubilees, 49:1-23.

21

For my last example, consider that this scholar uses different details in John in effect
against Matthew, Mark and Luke, and one of those problems is how John appears to be
running a day behind.
Now weve talked about this many times before but it bears repeating. In John 18:28 the
Pharisees clearly have not had their Passover lamb on the morning after Yshuas arrest
whereas Yshua and his disciples did have their Passover lamb.
First thing to realize here is that ANY lamb slain during the Passover-Feast of
Unleavened time frame is in effect a Passover lamb. There is no difference.
But in the case of the Pharisees, they had Oral Law (Pesachim 6:4) that extended their
deadline to eat a First Day Passover lamb from dawn on the 15th where Torah said it had
to be either consumed or destroyed to the sunset on the 15th.
Problem was Yshua is on the torture stake on the 15th at the time of the evening
sacrifice, so if the Pharisees didnt get going, they were going to miss the extended
deadline to do the first sacrifice from the Oral Law and have to wait until the 14 Iyar a
month later to do the Passover by the Written Law (Numbers 9). John 18, a witness from
the first century, simply showed how the two systems worked together historically,
without making comment on whether it was right or wrong.
As a result, when we throw out the Scripture and then complain we cant prove it from
later or more fragmentary sources we have already shot ourselves in the proverbial foot
and hampered our own investigation. And then we wonder why nothing else seems to
make sense.
So I am afraid this last scholar flunked out so badly in his analysis that the rest of the
class doesnt pass either, which is why I cant recommend this e-book in spite of its many
other admirable qualities.
So lets end where we began: So close, so close and yet so far.

22

PART 2: THE HAFTORAH

Torah Question of the Week:
In Deuteronomy 17:15 Abba YHWH predicts Israel will have a king after asking for
one. Why then, when they do ask for one, does Abba YHWH refuse them and tell
them a king brings only bad things?
Because these things Abba YHWH says about kings are TRUE. Ultimately Abba
YHWH is Israels only King and He wants them to acknowledge that first. The human
king who is chosen must also be Torah observant as the last part of Deuteronomy 17
shows and cannot be elevated above his brothers.
1) Haftorah portion (English- Isaiah 9:1-6; 49:1-6; 51:12-52:12) and discuss
common themes with the Torah portion.
NOTE- This is different from the traditional reading which would be Isaiah
51:12-52:12. I will read all the sections to show the contrasts between them.
2) Our linguistic commentary
ANOCHI, ANOCHI (51:12) = I, I. A double amplifier of I or I am, but also
suggesting Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (I am that I am). In Aramaic ENA is just I but the
double I is ENA NA, which suggests Abba YHWH as well. When you amplify then
this word, it is a very special message showing Abba YHWHs presence with Israel to be
beyond intense and amazing.
BEN ADAM (51:12) = son of man. Showing perhaps Yshuas vulnerability in prophetic
form, the son of man can be killed, but also triumphs after death. The phrase man
already appears, so the implication is son of man is separate from the rest of humanity.
SHEKAR (51:19) = drunk. Same word used for what Greek NT calls SYCHAR, the site
of Jacobs well at Beersheba where Yshua talks to a Samaritan woman in Yochanan 4.
The word SHEKAR can mean liar as well and some scholars associate it with
SHECHEM, though I dont agree with this linkage and my skepticism is at the moment
majority opinion. The well was for Jacob and all his sons but it became part of Ephraims
territory and later was co-opted by Samaritans.
On the traditional portion Stone says on p. 1199:
The prophet alternates between vivid descriptions of suffering and lyrical evocations of
joy and fulfillment, for this is a microcosm of Israels history: no matter how dire the
situation, hope is always at hand. Indeed, it is a principle of Israels faith that Messiah
can come at any moment, and if so, while pondering the causes of exile and pain, we
must always remember that God declares to us constantly, It is I, I am He Who comforts
you. The day will yet come when Israel will hear God calling out joyously to Jerusalem,

23

Wake up! Wake up! Don your strength, O Zion, don the garments of your splendor, O
JerusalemExile is most painful when there is no tomorrow, but not when we take to
heart that God remembers us and longs for our return. Prophecies such as these have
firmed Jews when their enemies tried to break them. Israels national existence has
always been brightened by the knowledge that God is close at hand, long for us to let
Him bring the herald to proclaim: Peace! Good! Salvation!
Explain significance of final MEEM in the word increase 9:6 but in the MIDDLE of
the word!
YESHUA (49:6) = the name of His Son reaches the ends of the earth! It is actually
reading, So that MY YESHUA will reach the ends of the earth. And even more
interesting, its in FEMININE form, perhaps hinting about Yshuas mother and the
virgin birth? Or perhaps confirming Genesis 3:15?
3) Renewed Covenant portion: (English) Acts 7:35-60 (all the way through with
applicable footnotes.)
Acts 7:38
Torah is the Living Words of YHWH received by Moshe. The Spirit of Y'shua
Mashiyach is the Living Word; therefore, the Word/Spirit that is in Mashiyach is the
same Word of YHWH that gave Torah to Moshe and who has come to write Torah
upon our hearts!
Acts 7:41
Rejoicing in the work of their hands. This is the identical rebuke YHWH gave to the
Israelites when they were in the Wilderness. One would expect Stephen to say this to
a bunch of Pharisees, but what often gets overlooked is that Stephen is also the first
Nazarene martyr, and later on he is called a Christian. Therefore, it is extremely
important for Christians today to understand that Stephen would be appalled at the
works of their hands that pervades Catholic and many Orthodox and Protestant
churches today. He would most certainly detest marble pagan style statues of Yshua,
Mary and the other disciples.
Acts 7:53
This same rebuke is levied in Mat_15:2-3 and Joh_7:19. Both Yshua and Tzephania
(Stephen) admonish the Pharisees for elevating their Oral Traditions over the Written
Torah of Moshe. Believing their own Oral Traditions to be equal to or of higher
value than the Word of YHWH, anyone who suggests otherwise undermines their
authority and enrages them to commit murder. The message in all cases is clear:
Mess with the Oral Traditions and we may kill you. The irony is that while the
religious authorities accuse Yshua of making himself equal with Elohim (Joh_5:18),

24

they make themselves out to be equal to Elohim by nullifying the Word of YHWH by
their own man made customs and traditions. (Mat_15:6)
4) Highlight common themes in Aramaic (terms in footnotes which I will read):
5) Apply these themes/issues to modern issues in the Netzari faith. (Test our
teachers, prophets and the spirits too! Dont show favoritism or be seduced by
mere appearances. )
6) Relate to all or part of an Appendix portion of AENT or footnotes from a portion
(A Prophet like Moshe, p. 715-716).
STUDY QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED NEXT WEEK FOR THIS
PORTION:
There is only ONE study question this week but it is a BIG one. I want you all to list
for me all the things that Moshe and Yshua have in common, with Scripture citations
to back it up. I will tell you all right now this is a long list!
Torah Thought for the Week:
Behold the Prophet Like Moshe Comes
First, lets start by reviewing the notes I gave on Deuteronomy 18:15-21 earlier
(18:15) = from your own midst will Yahweh raise up a prophet like me from among your
brethren, and it is to him that you must listen. Bible.ort.org suggests this means that the
prophet must be born in Jerusalem, but this divorces the Prophet as a title of Messiah,
which is how it is understood by the Immerser and the Pharisees in the NT, since Messiah
had to be born in Bethlehem, where Yshua was. Ironically the discussion in Yochanan 7
has Yshua being known as a Nazarene used against him since they assume thats his
birthplace.
(18:16) = all this is because you asked Yahweh your Elohim at Horeb, saying: We cannot
listen to the voice of Yahweh our Elohim anymore! We cannot look at this great fire
anymore! We do not want to die!
This is remarkable because what this text is saying is that one of the reasons Messiah
came to be in human formagain he is the Prophetis that Israel couldnt bear to hear
the voice of the Father! The text then continues
(18:17) = then said Yahweh: The thing they have spoken is well and good. But the reason
is given a whole new slant based on what we just saw. Its not just that Abba YHWH is
pleased that they recognize the sanctity of His VoiceHe is also pleased because this
gives Him another reason to send His Son Yshua to the earth! Next line continues the
thought about the Prophet.

25

(18:18) = I will set up a prophet (understood to be THE PROPHET here and in 18:15
AGR) for them from among their brethren, just as you (MOSHEH!) are. I will place My
Word in his mouth and he will declare all that I command him. So this is the opposite of
the false prophet in Deuteronomy 13this prophet speaks the words Abba YHWH
commands of him and is just like Moshe. But the next line is also very revealing
(18:19) = and it will come to pass that anyone does not listen to the WORD (singular!) he
declares in MY NAME I will punish him. This strongly implies harsh punishment for
those who will not heed the Prophet, or Messiah Yshua, and that warning certainly came
to pass. The word DARASH means seek after, inquire after implies a judgment by
witnesses, similar to how two angels were sent to Sodom just before that city was
destroyed. The text also points to a future time from here when Yahweh, rather than
Israel, is directly killing sinners for disobeying His Wordliterally! A similar warning is
given regarding Yshua in angelic form, in Exodus 23:20-23.
(18:20) = presumptuously. However, root means to seethe or boil, meaning they are
hot headed with their own arrogance and just say whatever they feel, whether Abba
YHWH said it or not to them.
(18:21) = If a prophet predicts something in Yahwehs Name and the prediction does not
come to pass or become true, then the message was not spoken by Yahweh. That prophet
has spoken deceitfully and you must not fear him. So again, here is the clarification
needed to go with Deuteronomy 13s false prophet who exhorts those to go after OTHER
gods whereas a TRUE prophet of Abba YHWH speaks IN HIS NAME AND THE
SIGNS COME TRUE. If on the other hand Yahwehs name is invoked and the prophecy
does not come true, that prophet is false.
But I think we really need to go much deeper, into the heart of what a prophet like
Moshe really means. The Torah account, having been written by Moshe, is of course
understated like the man himself. I say this because in the Torah text, once in 18:15 and
again in 18:19 never refers to this person as THE PROPHET, but only A PROPHET, and
this is so even though it seems pretty clear there will only be ONE prophet who will ever
be worthy of being linked to Moshe.
It is only in the 14 centuries between Moshe and Yshua that the teachers who lived in
between these men decided that a prophet like Moshe should be turned into a
Messianic title of THE PROPHET. And the interesting thing about that decision is, it
had nothing to do with Yshua at all!
(Joh 1:19) And this is the witness of Yochanan when the Yehudeans from
Urishlim sent priests and Levites to inquire of him, "Who are you?" (Joh 1:20)
And he confessed and did not deny and did not declare, "I am the Mashiyach."
(Joh 1:21) And they asked him again, "Who therefore? Are you Eliyahu?" And
he said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he said, "No!" (Joh 1:22) And
they said to him, "And then, who are you that we might give an answer to those
who sent us? What do you say concerning yourself?"

26

(Joh 1:23) He said: "I am the voice of the crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight
the way of Master YHWH.' As Yesha'yahu the prophet had said." (Joh 1:24) And
those who were sent were from the Pharisees. (Joh 1:25) And they inquired of
him and said to him, "Why therefore do you immerse? You are not the
Mashiyach nor Eliyahu nor the Prophet. (Joh 1:26) Yochanan answered and said
to them, "I immerse with water among you, but he stands, him who you do not
know. (Joh 1:27) This is he who will come after me, yet is before me. I am not
worthy to loosen the straps of his sandals."
What is crystal clear from the Scripture then is the fact that all three names/titles were
viewed as synonyms for the same person. In order for the Pharisees and Levites then to
be satisfied Yochanan wasnt Mashiyach, they also wanted him to deny the two other
versions of that officeEliyahu because that prophet was said to appear before
Mashiyach did but in other circles was viewed as a returning Messiah because he didnt
die and the Prophet, the very same person described in Deuteronomy 18.
On a related side note, Yshua does link the Immerser to Eliyahu thematically and says
Eliyahu HAS come, but they didnt know it. It may also be that Yochanan himself was
not aware that he was doing that function. He was filled with the Ruach ha Kodesh but
the reason and purpose for that filling might not have been made known to him even
though Luke 1 makes it clear Gabriel told this to his parents.
In any case, the main point is still the definition of THE PROPHET, in applying
Deuteronomy 18:15-21 to Mashiyach was a decision the Pharisees made long before
either Yshua or the Immerser were born. And in doing so, they were I believe following
the inspiration of the Ruach ha Kodesh, whether they realized it or not.
The other place where THE PROPHET comes into play is in the Aramaic version of
Yochanan 7
(Joh 7:45) And those guards returned to the chief priests and Pharisees and the
priests said to them, "Why didn't you bring him?" (Joh 7:46) The guards said to
them, "Never has a man spoken thus as this man speaks!"
(Joh 7:47) The Pharisees said to them, "Why even you are deceived! (Joh 7:48)
No one from the leaders or the Pharisees has believed in him. (Joh 7:49) Except
this people who do not know Torah and are accursed.
(Joh 7:50) Niqodemus, one of them, he who had come to Y'shua at night, said to
them, (Joh 7:51) "Why? Our Torah does not condemn a man except it hears from
him first and knows what he has done!"
(Joh 7:52) And they answered and said to him, "Why are you also from Galeela?
You search and see; the Prophet will not rise from Galeela."

27

Now lets see the key footnote on THE PROPHET.

John 7:52
110) The Greek redactor confused the Aramaic future tense for the past tense, and
also misunderstood the context of this section. Y'shua is the Mashiyach who is
linked to "the Prophet" of which Moshe said, "unto him you shall listen"
(Deu_18:15). The point was that "The" Prophet (meaning Mashiyach as
prophesied in Mic_5:1) would not arise from Galilee, but would be born in
Bethlehem. It is ironic that the Pharisees assumed that Y'shua was born in
Galilee, since he is known as a Nazarene, and tried to use that against him.
Also, as I discussed before, there were more than half a dozen prophets in Tanakh that
came from Galilee including Eliyahu, Elisha, Jonah, Nahum (his hometown Nahums
Rock, Kephar-Naum, Capernaum) and a bunch of others. Therefore, the Greek reading
of a prophet does not rise out of Galilee makes no sense as plenty of other prophets
ROSE out of that region. Instead, the command to search and see was a command for
Nicodemus to read this parsha in Deuteronomy 18 since THE PROPHET, or the Messiah,
had to be born in Bethlehem!
And then there is perhaps the more obvious and massive way that Yshua is a prophet
like Moshe, as there are nearly 40 similarities between the two men in terms of their
biography and that is why I have made it your one study question this week.
But of all these, two similarities between Moshe and Yshua stand out the most to me.
First, both knew Abba YHWH in the most intimate way He allowed in their day, face to
face, but Yshua who came down from His presence, did know His Father even better
than Moshe did, yet no one from either time period knew Abba YHWH as well as either
of them did.
And second, in both cases, their individual humility put each of them at grave risk. In
Moshes case, his humility would have gotten him killed for turning Abba YHWH down
had Tzipporah not circumcised his son, and his humility may have prevented him from
negotiating some mitigation of his death sentence from Abba YHWH, though we can
never know for sure. In Yshuas case, his humility was fatal in that he did NOT call
down 12 legions of Messengers to save himself nor use his power to take the cup from
his hand.
No two other people in Scripture can even come close to these last two claims. These are
the two indispensable people without whom covenant could not proceed and who had to
shoulder all that was NOT their fault so that we might find forgiveness and eternal life
today, because ultimately it is Scripture itself that links Yshua and Moshe into the most
exclusive club of them all, even though ultimately there can be only one Mashiyach. Still,
that linkage between the two of them remains as Yochanan said it best...

28

(Joh 1:17) Because Torah was given through Moshe, but truth and grace through
Y'shua who is the Mashiyach. (Joh 1:18) Man has not ever seen Elohim. The
Only Begotten of Elohim, he who is in the bosom14 of his Father, he has declared
Him.
(Joh 5:45) Why? Do you think I will accuse you before the Father? The one who
will accuse you is Moshe, in whom you place your hope! (Joh 5:46) For if only
you had believed in Moshe, you would also be believers in me, for Moshe wrote
concerning me.(Joh 5:47) And, if you do not believe the writings of that man,
how will you believe my words?"
A prophet like Moshe to be sure, because before Yshua came Moshe was the very best
example of what Mashiyach could be like. But just because they had similarities doesnt
of course mean Yshua was a prophet IDENTICAL to Moshe because without Yshua
being infinitely greater than even Moshe, we dont have eternal life! And that is why it
would be up to one of Moshes descendants to complete the circle
(Luk 1:5) In the days of Herodus the king of Yehuda, there was a certain priest
whose name was Zakharyah, from the order of the house of Awiya and his wife
from the descended daughters of Ahron. Elishwa was her name.
(Mat 3:13) Then came Y'shua from Galeela to the Yordanan to Yochanan, to be
immersed by him. (Mat 3:14) But Yochanan was refusing him and said, I should
be immersed by you, and you come to me. (Mat 3:15) Then Y'shua answered and
said to him "Allow (it) now for as such, it is proper for us to fulfill all
righteousness," and then he allowed it.
Im Andrew Gabriel Roth and thats your Torah Thought for the Week!
Next week we will be exploring Ki Teze, or Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19. Our Haftorah
portion will be Isaiah 40:1-11 and our Renewed Covenant portion will be Mark 1:1-14.
Stay tuned!

29