A few things I can’t help but notice in study:

1. That pretty much all we need to know is already revealed in the first few chapters of Genesis, for example: the steps God takes to move creation (and our submitted spirits and lives) from a state of chaos and ‘choshek’ to shalom and Shabbat (and the pattern we are meant to follow); the way we fall (religion – our inclination to ‘shema’ any other word than God’s); the dark side of our free will, that is, our desire to be ‘god’ in our own lives, which results in our rejection of God; and His incredible and inexplicable mercy and compassion in the face of that rebellion.  It almost sounds blasphemous, but it seems a picture of a humble God, which seems contradictory to common understanding of what God ‘should be’.  Yet if this is so, and we are ‘made in the image of God’ then shouldn’t we be seeking to live from a mind/will/life that is also this kind of humble, compassionate, merciful?  It really seems to emphasize the critical need for humility and patience with each other as fellow sinners (or prone-to-sin-ners), instead of the usual condescending or critical or dismissive attitude we often hold with each other

2. The apparent contradiction between the utterly rebellious, rejecting, self-justifying ‘pass the blame’ actions and seeming mind-set of Adam and Eve (they never are recorded as having repented)…and God’s seeming actions of ignoring his own conviction and sentence (death) on them, yet He commands Joshua to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, not only the adults, but the children, babies, animals.  Could they possibly be more guilty than Adam and Eve?  This is jarring and it is often hard to resist trying to explain it, it’s a trust issue at this point that God knows more of the details than I do.  But it is still there waiting for possible illumination. 

3. That there are consistent patterns taught in Torah that have to do with numbers…2, 3 and 7 for example

The number two, for example: the second day of creation isn’t called ‘good’ until the events of day three are initiated; there are two brothers or two wives…and there is a right to a blessing that belongs to the first, but is taken, given, stolen or rejected and it is the second who receives and keeps that right.  Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau, Leah/Rachel…and then the interesting comment in 1 Cor 15:45 about the first and second ‘Adam’.  According to this text, the first Adam rejected his blessing (that was to be extended to all humankind) and the last Adam received and remained in it and through him, all the other righteous ones find rebirth and renewing; the reversal of what happened in the first Adam. 

4. From all that is written about Jesus it does seem a real possibility that somehow there is a picture of scattering (exile) in the first Adam and regathering (returning) in the last Adam.  Both completely human, but both somehow also unique from all other humans in their original state, and one chose death but the other chose life. Hope and life were rejected by the first but revealed through the last.  And the key seems to be repentance, humility and obedience…which isn’t a new thing!  Though if this is so, that Jesus is the ‘last Adam’ in this sense, then why isn’t there evidence to support it?  The world today seems no better off in any way than the world then, different, but not better. There were ‘tzadiks’ before Jesus and there are ‘tzadiks’ after…why isn’t there a real difference?  In the grand scheme, the concept of Jesus really fits, but the evidence is kind of shaky.

A Work in Progress

I hold the following understanding:

• God exists

• There is only ONE God   

• The Law of God was given at creation, and known and obeyed by Adam, Noah, Abraham etc

• The Word of God was given to Israel as the manifesto of their new nation, at Mt Sinai, where it was recorded by ‘the finger of God’ (which may or may not be an idiom, but which in any case attaches a very specific and distinct  importance to the ten words) and is divine and the ‘plumb-line’ for the rest of the Law as well as in determining how to interpret or accept other writings

• The Torah (first 5 books) contain the teaching of God, and understood in relation to the ten words

• The Prophets call people back to the Law, they don’t add new teaching

• The Psalms and Writings are descriptive of the Law and a lawful life, but don’t add new teaching

• The Rabbinic writings and the ‘New Testament’ may contain good description of a lawful life, but don’t add new teaching and aren’t necessary to understand the Law, and if they contradict or appear to contradict the Law, they’re either misunderstood or in error

• The teaching of God is understood as a whole unit and not bits and pieces, and it makes common sense

• The Law teaches how to honour God and how to show that honour in relationships with fellow creatures

• The ‘New Covenant’ is the Law written not on tablets of stone, but on thinking minds and expressed in daily life        

• I reject any concept of God not taught in Torah; including ‘trinity’, God being or becoming human, and of any other divine being (‘Satan’) holding power in opposition to God for the souls of men 

• We're meant to learn Torah individually but also as a community; our Teacher is our Father; there's a need to remain humble and teachable in all states of knowledge, arrogance kills communication and stifles growth

Psalm 23 verse 4 part 2

Psalm 23 isn’t just a pretty poem written by a post-card perfect shepherd, sitting on a grassy slope in the sunshine.  It’s a gritty testimonial of active trust in God while living through severe stress. 

Tradition has it that David wrote this Psalm while on the run from Saul, who wanted to kill him.  The words of the psalm definitely do support such a tradition. He wrote about facing death, being ‘cut off’ from life.  This is what the expression ‘shadow of death’ as used elsewhere consistently means.  His enemy Saul was intent on killing him, on consigning his soul to ‘Hades’ the place of ‘shadows’.  He was ‘walking through’ this valley of shadows, of imminent death. 

But David had power too, he wasn’t helpless.  What was his power?  His trust in his God. David knew God was greater than Saul.  David had more than one opportunity to kill Saul, remember?  What kept him from just eliminating his oppressor?  Even his own men urged him to do it.  Surely to eliminate the competition would clear the way to the throne?  David faced a physical danger from Saul.  But he also faced perhaps even greater spiritual danger from his own desire to act contrary to trusting in God.

And the men of David said to him, "Here is the day of which the LORD said to you, 'Behold, I will give your enemy into your hand, and you shall do to him as it shall seem good to you.'"

So what kept him from it?  He did go stealthily towards Saul with a knife in his hand.  But something stopped him, and instead of cutting off Saul’s life, he cut off the corner of Saul’s robe. 

And afterward David’s heart struck him, because he had cut off a corner of Saul’s robe. He said to his men, "The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD’s anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD’s anointed." So David persuaded his men with these words and did not permit them to attack Saul.

See how he was under pressure to take for himself?  Instead of trusting that God would establish him in God’s own time and in God’s own way…David was under great pressure (temptation even) to take what didn’t belong to him.  Doesn’t this sound familiar?  It should.  Both Adam and Eve (Gen 3) and Jesus (Mark 4) faced similar situations of temptation to take something that according to human common-sense, seemed good.  But in each situation, the temptation was really to act in a way that denied trust in God. 

God anointed Saul as king.  And only God could take the king-ship away.  That wasn’t David’s job.  And he understood this because of his trust in God.  David’s trust translated into trusting and obedient action.  He knew that his only deliverance was to trust in God to keep, provide and bless him.  And that God would do this through His Law; that obedience to God’s word was what would protect and deliver David.  So David allowed his trust in God to determine his actions.

David knew that as long as he trusted God, he could count on God's help to keep him from acting sinfully.  God's 'rod and staff' of correction and direction encouraged and reassured David that he didn't have to fear giving in to the temptation to act on his own understanding.

So back to Psalm 23, reading it with this situation in mind. 

Even when I must walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no danger, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff reassure me. 

Pharisees and Sadducees and the soul after death

The following is an interesting bit that’s quoted (in part) and edited (slightly) from a random website I came across while looking up something else…

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the Pharisees being believers in reincarnation. (As a matter of interest, Paul was a Pharisee).  Josephus wrote about the Pharisees' belief that the souls of evil men are punished after death and the souls of good men are "removed into other bodies" and will have "power to revive and live again."

From time to time throughout Jewish history, there was a persistent belief about dead prophets returning to life through reincarnation. The Sadducees rejected these Persian concepts of resurrection and all Hellenistic influences involving reincarnation. They accepted only the orthodox Hebrew belief in Sheol. So there were a variety of influences going on in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus.

When Jesus began his ministry, many people wondered if he was the reincarnation of one of the prophets. From Luke 9: “And he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?" And they answered, "John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen."

Throughout his ministry, Jesus taught people about the true resurrection - a spiritual rebirth within a living person. Thus, when Jesus stated that he was the resurrection and the life, he was teaching them about a rebirth of the spirit - not into a new body - as when we are born from our mother's womb - but a rebirth of our spirit within the body we now inhabit. Jesus was distinguishing between what was believed in those days concerning an afterlife, and the teaching concerning a spiritual change within us that can lead to liberation (in THIS life!) He was making a distinction between "the resurrection of the body" (returning to life from physical death) and "the resurrection of the spirit" (returning to life from spiritual death). This confusion concerning Jesus teachings is documented in John 3 when Jesus had to explain to Nicodemus the difference between physical rebirth and spiritual rebirth.

(End of edited quote) The part that really struck me is underlined.  It brings up some related questions.  First, the question is what exactly is meant by reincarnation?  Secondly, what exactly is (and isn't) meant by our 'spirit'?  It also brings up a question of how we traditionally understand the teaching of Jesus.  Do we properly understand what he actually taught?  Did he consistently teach that the resurrection means 'a spiritual change within us (NOW) that can lead to a liberation (life)'?  This change of course, would be a real and tangible thing, there would be identifiable evidence of such spiritual change...by an identifiable change in one's behaviour, attitude and actions.  Or did he teach about some future event that would result in life in an indefinable 'heaven'? This of course could not be proven, as nobody had ever gone there and come back.

Seems to me that Jesus might more logically have taught the former.

A few questions to keep in mind while studying...