Concerning faith and right action: what God has made one, let no man separate. Yaakov 2:1-26 (Author’s convergent translation from Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew)
1 My brothers and sisters, fellow Jews [see 1:1], do not in partiality, favouritism, respect of persons hold the faith, belief, persuasion, trust in the Lord Yeshua Messiah the glory. 2 For if a person enters your synagogue wearing a gold ring, dressed in white, clean clothes, and a poor person, a beggar in shabby, dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and you gaze at the face of the one who is wearing the white, clean clothes, and say, “You sit here it’s a good spot,” and you say to the poor person, beggar, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 Are you not then making separations, showing partiality among yourselves, and making yourselves judges with thoughts of evil, intentional harm? 5 Listen, hear, comprehend, understand my completely loved brothers and sisters, fellow Jews: did the God not select the poor, beggar of this world to be rich in faith, trust, persuasion, belief and heirs of the kingdom which He announced, promised to those who love Him completely, fully? 6 But you have despised, dishonoured the poor person. Is it not the rich who oppress, exercise harsh control over you and drag you before judgement seats? 7 Do they not blaspheme, speak evil of the good Name by which you have been called? 8 If, however, you are being filled with, the Kingly Torat/specific law/instruction according to the Writings/Scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself, [Lev. 19:18]” you are doing good. 9 But if you show partiality, favouritism, you are committing sin, missing the mark set by God’s holiness and are rebuked, convicted by the Torah/Law as Torah/law breakers. 10 For whoever keeps, guards the entire Torah[H]/Law, yet stumbles, falls, offends in one, has become guilty, subject of all, individually and collectively. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do murder, you have made yourself a breaker of the Torah[H]/Law. 12 So speak, and so do, as those who are to be judged by the Torah[H]/law of freedom, liberty. 13 For judgment devoid of mercy will be shown to one who has shown no mercy; the mercy rejoices against, is glorious over, triumphs over, perpetually boasts against the judgment. 14 What does it profit, my brothers and sisters, fellow Jews if someone says he has faith, trust, belief, persuasion, but he has no works, actions? Can faith, trust, belief, persuasion save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, bread 16 and any one of you says to them, “Go in peace, wholeness, wellbeing, be warmed and be filled,” yet you don’t give them the things they need for their body, what use is that? 17 In the same way, faith, trust, belief, persuasion also, if it has no works, actions, deeds is dead, necrotic being alone, separate, apart. 18 But someone might say, “You have faith and I have works, actions; show me your faith without the works, actions, and I will show you my faith by my works, actions.” 19 You believe that the God is one, well done; the demons also believe, and shudder, tremble, stiffen, are horrified. 20 Now are you willing to know, act on the knowledge, you vain, empty person, that faith, trust, belief, persuasion without works, actions is barren, dead, necrotic? 21 Was our father Avraham not justified by works, actions when he bore, led, offered up his son Yitzchak (Isaac) on the altar? 22 You see that faith, trust, belief, persuasion together with his works, actions, and as a result of the works, actions, faith, trust, belief, persuasion was made perfect, fully filled, made whole, well-constructed. 23 and the Scripture, TaNaKh, Hebrew Bible was fulfilled which says, “And Avraham believed, agreed with God, and it was counted to him as righteousness, charity, practical love, [Gen. 15:6]” and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see, perceive therefore, now truly that a person is justified by works, actions and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was Rachav the prostitute not justified by works, actions also when she allowed entry to the messengers, angels and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works, actions is dead. Yaakov 2:1-26 (Line upon line) 1 My brothers and sisters, fellow Jews[see 1:1] (adelphos mou[G], achay[H]), do not (me[G]) in partiality, favouritism, respect of persons (prosōpolēpsias[G]) hold (echo[G]) the faith, belief, persuasion, trust (ho pistis[G], be’emunat[H]) in the Lord (ho kurios[G], Adoneinu[H]) Yeshua[H] (Iesous[G], Joshua, Jesus: YHVH Saves) Messiah (Christos[G], HaMashiyach[H], Anointed One) the glory (ho doxa[G]). 1 My brothers and sisters, fellow Jews [see 1:1], do not in partiality, favouritism, respect of persons hold the faith, belief, persuasion, trust in the Lord Yeshua[H] Messiah the glory. Put simply, “As Jews and followers of Yeshua, Who is God with us (Imanu El), the glory of God in us, don’t practice favouritism. In particular, show no favouritism when new people, Jews and Gentiles alike, come into your Messianic Jewish Synagogue.” (v.2-3) Yaakov continues to address the Messianic Jewish community of the first century Diaspora. He begins this portion with a reminder that halakhah (the way we walk) in Messiah is lit with Yeshua’s Glory. Therefore we are to walk as people who are aware of our own identity. We are Talmidim (students) of our Glorious Messiah, having been shown favour we are to reject the practice of favouritism. The key to right action, that is, present halakhah, is the very nature of Messiah Himself. The Jewish writer of the Book to the Hebrews gives us a beautiful glimpse into the vast glory of the Mashiyach (Messiah) when he writes: “Ha-Ben (the Son) is the radiance of HaShem’s (YHVH’s) glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful Davar (Word, Essence, Substance).” – Book to the Hebrews 1:3 (Author’s Translation) We further notice that the previous (1:17-18, 23-25) metaphor promoting reflected glory is alluded to by way of inference in the latter part of the first verse of the present chapter “Messiah the glory”. Yaakov is writing to Messiah following Jews living in Jewish communities throughout the known world. At this time (approx. 40 – 50 C.E.) they continued to worship in synagogues which were attended by a believing Jewish majority and by Gentile God fearers who prior to the coming of Yeshua and the Messianic Jewish faith were allowed to attend synagogue meetings only as standing guests at the open entry way to the synagogue. They could listen to and observe proceedings, but could not enter and sit among Jewish worshippers. Also at this time Jewish believers were still struggling with the idea that Gentiles could be included in the redemptive work of God (Acts 10:28). Therefore, riches and poverty were just one aspect of the problem of partiality (favouritism). In part there was a righteous motivation for excluding Gentiles, who were perceived to be pagans practicing lifestyles contrary to the Torah and therefore were a danger to the spiritual health of the Jewish community. However, Biblical Judaism has always taught Israel not to act with partiality. “17 You are not to recognize faces with partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You are not to be afraid of any person, for the judgment is God’s…” -D’varim/Deuteronomy 1:17 2 For if a person (anēr[G], iysh[H]) enters your synagogue (synagoge[G], l’veiyt hakeneset[H]) wearing a gold ring (chrusodaktulios[G], zahav al yado[H]), dressed in white, clean (lampros[G]) clothes, and a poor person, a beggar (ptōchos[G]) in shabby, dirty (rhuparos[G]) clothes also comes in, 3 and you gaze at the face of (epiblepō[G], poniym[H]) the one who is wearing the white, clean (lampros[G]) clothes, and say, “You sit here it’s a good (kalōs[G], tava’at[H]) spot,” and you say to the poor person, beggar (ptōchos[G]), “You stand (histēmi[G]) over there, or sit down (kathēmai[G]) by my footstool (hupopodion[G], rag’lay[H]),” 2 For if a person enters your synagogue wearing a gold ring, dressed in white, clean clothes, and a poor person, a beggar in shabby, dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and you gaze at the face of the one who is wearing the white, clean clothes, and say, “You sit here it’s a good spot,” and you say to the poor person, beggar, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” The Greek synagoge appears 57 times in the HaBriyt HaChadashah “New Testament” and is only once used to describe a non-Jewish assembly (Rev. 2:9). It is therefore unacceptable that the majority of English translations of the present text render synagoge[G] as “assembly, gathering, meeting” etc. This clouds the meaning and is at its core an antisemitic translational choice. Translators have attempted to make this very Jewish book of Yaakov sound more universal by hiding Jewish specific terms beneath generic terminology. It is important to understand that this letter was being written to functioning Messianic synagogues throughout the Diaspora sometime between 40 and 50 C.E. That means that the Messiah following Jewish communities in question were predominantly Messianic Jews joined by a small number of Gentiles (unconverted observers of 1st Century Judaism), and that the Jewish majority continued to worship as Jews in a traditional Jewish way within the revelation of Messiah Yeshua. We note that in this scenario the beggar in shabby clothing is being assigned either a standing position at or outside the door to the synagogue, or a seat on the floor. The former was once reserved for the “God fearing” Gentile (unconverted observer of 1st Century Judaism) and the latter for the lower class of Jew. However, In Messiah not only were the lower class Jews elevated, the Gentiles were now welcome to enter and be seated within the believing Jewish community. Ancient Jewish law concerning the equal treatment of rich and poor alike in judiciary matters is sighted by Maimonides: "Two adversaries (in a dispute with each other), if one of them is clothed with precious garments, goodly apparel, and the other is clothed with, vile clothing, (the judge) says to the honorable (wealthy) person, ‘either clothe him (the poor person) as you are clothed, while you contend with him, or be clothed as he is, so that you may be alike, on an equal footing.’'' -Maimonides on Hilchot Sanhedrin, c. 21. sect. 2. Further, with regard to social position as it applied to matters of law Maimonides sites the Talmud Bavliy: "One shall not sit, and another stand, but both shall stand; but if the Sanhedrin, or court, are pleased to let them sit, they sit; but one does not sit above, and the other below; but one by the side of the other.'' - Maimonides ib. sect. 3. vid. Talmud Bavliy Shebuot, fol. 30. 1. 4 Are you not then making separations, showing partiality (diakrinō[G]) among yourselves, and making (ginomai[G]) yourselves judges (kritēs[G], shoftiym[H]) with thoughts (dialogismos[G]) of evil, intentional harm (ponēros[G], resha[H])? 5 Listen, hear, comprehend, understand (shimu[H]) my completely loved brothers and sisters, fellow Jews (adelphos agapētos[G], achay ahuvay[H]): did the God (ho Theos[G], Elohiym[H]) not select (eklegomai[G]) the poor, beggar (ptōchos[G]) of this world (kosmos toutou[G], haolam[H]) to be rich (plousios[G]) in faith, trust, persuasion, belief (pistis[G], Emunah[H]) and heirs (klēronomos[G]) of the kingdom (ho basileia[G], hamalchut[H]) which He announced, promised (epaggellō[G], hivtiyach[H]) to those who love Him completely, fully (ha agapaō autos[G], leohavayv[H])? 4 Are you not then making separations, showing partiality among yourselves, and making yourselves judges with thoughts of evil, intentional harm? 5 Listen, hear, comprehend, understand my completely loved brothers and sisters, fellow Jews: did the God not select the poor, beggar of this world to be rich in faith, trust, persuasion, belief and heirs of the kingdom which He announced, promised to those who love Him completely, fully? We note that it is not distinctions but separations among the Jewish believing community that are being addressed. The primary issue is wrong motivations (yetzer hara) and the passing of judgement based on outward appearances. Yeshua had commanded His disciples to stop judging by mere appearances and make right judgements (John 7:24). Yaakov is not instructing the Jewish believers not to judge but instead not to make false judgements. When we judge by appearances we are submitting our judgement to the sin affected reality of this temporary world, whereas when we judge according to God’s Spirit we are distinguishing between the temporal and the eternal and choosing the eternal (2 Cor. 4:18). Yaakov is reminding his fellow Messiah following dispersed countrymen that their understanding of what obedience to the Torah (Instruction) requires had always included just treatment of all people within the Jewish community. This is not a foreign practice to his readers, it had simply become a neglected one within the Jewish communities of the Diaspora. Why? Because they had adopted, or syncretised pagan Hellenistic practices. “Do not pervert justice or show partiality—undue favour for one over another. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent.” -D’varim/Deuteronomy 16:19 The real issue being addressed here is the motive of the human core (heart) that is the point from which all the parts of our being emanate rather than the heart in opposition to the mind. Perhaps money was needed for the running of the synagogue, the purchase of Torah scrolls etc.? Whatever the reason for showing favouritism, the Torah clearly instructs against the practice. “did the God not select the poor, beggar of this world to be rich in faith, trust, persuasion, belief…” We note that the text does not say “God chose the poor to be rich”, but “God chose the poor to be rich in faith.” The false Prosperity Gospel misses the point. What good are temporal riches that dull the faith of a person? God wills prosperity for the believer in Himself, but He does not will our temporal material prosperity except that it be utilised in the furthering of His Kingdom. “What good does it do a person to gain the entire world but loose his soul?” (Mk. 8:36; Matt. 16:26) The materially poor are rich in faith because they are devoid of the distraction of temporal riches. Those who are materially poor are inclined toward trusting God because they have nothing and no one but God to place their trust in. Therefore, material poverty can act as a vehicle for spiritual prosperity. “The meek will inherit the land and enjoy peace and prosperity.” - Tehillim/Psalm 37:11 “Blessing comes from God for the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” – Mattitiyahu/Matthew 5:3 As I have said, Yaakov admonishes his hearers to “Look not to what is seen but to what is unseen, for what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is everlasting” (2 Cor. 4:18). In particular Yaakov is using phrasing that speaks to the 1st Century Jewish view of the Gentiles. He is employing specific terminology. For example ancient Jewish commentary refers to aniy Yisrael “the poor of Israel” as being distinct from aniy olam “the poor of the world”*. The “world” was seen as synonymous with “goyim” nations, pagans. Therefore, in one sense “the poor of this world” is understood by Yaakov’s hearers as referring to the Gentiles who are both poor in respect to physical wealth and in respect to spiritual health. This makes the teaching somewhat offensive to the early Jewish believers which is why Yaakov has prepared them by saying “Be quick to listen and slow to anger” (1:19-20). *Talmud Bavliy. Gittin, fol. 30. 1. & Bava Batra, fol. 10. 2. “The Kingdom which He promised to those who love Him fully.” The receiving of the Kingdom is simple, it is given to those who love Him fully. Do you love Him (God) fully, in Messiah? Then the Kingdom is given to you. Devoid of Messiah Yeshua we are all poor, lacking, dressed in filth. 6 But you have despised, dishonoured (atimazō[G]) the poor person (ptōchos[G]). Is it not the rich (plousios[G]) who oppress, exercise harsh control over (katadunasteuō[G]) you and drag (helkuō[G]) you before (eis[G]) judgement seats (kritērion[H], levateiy mishpat[H])? 7 Do they not blaspheme, speak evil of (blasphēmeō[G]) the good (kalos[G], hatovah[H]) name (onoma[G], HaShem[H]) by which you have been called (epikaleomai[G], hanikra aleiychem[H])? 6 But you have despised, dishonoured the poor person. Is it not the rich who oppress, exercise harsh control over you and drag you before judgement seats? 7 Do they not blaspheme, speak evil of the good name by which you have been called? Put concisely, don’t do to fellow believers of any ethnicity what is being done to you by non-believers. The foolish false choice posed by various Christian theologians, Hebrew Roots and Messianic writers asking “To Whom does ‘the good name’ refer?” is ludicrous. First because God is One and second because nothing could be further from Hebraic practice than a refusal to accept both interpretations as valid. Ultimatums are contrary to Biblical Hebrew thought. Scripture shines a light on cause and effect and God speaks clearly concerning action and consequence, practice and outcomes, whereas ultimatums are the domain of fallen humanity. The early Jewish believers were being taken to court on false charges by both rich Gentiles who hated them because of their association to YHVH, El Elohay Yisrael (the God of Israel v.5) and by rich rabbinical Jews who hated them due to their association with Yeshua HaMashiyach (Jesus the King Messiah v.1). So, in response to the false choice posed by Christian and Messianic Scholars alike “Which Name is being referred to, YHVH or Jesus?” we respond, “Yes!” “The good Name” is YHVH (v.5), Yeshua (v.1), Elohiym, El Elyon, El Shaddai, El Gibor, Adonay Yireh, Adonay Shalom, Sar shalom, Imanu-El… Adonay Eloheinu Adonay echad (God is One)! 8 If, however, you are being filled with (teleō[G]), the Kingly (basilikos[G], hamalchut[H]) Torat[H]/specific law/instruction (nomos[G]) according to the Writings/Scripture (graphe[G], Ketuvim/kakatuv[H]), “You shall love your neighbour as yourself, [Lev. 19:18]” you are doing good (kalōs[G], heiytavtem[H]). 9 But if you show partiality, favouritism (prosōpolēpteō[G]), you are committing (ergazomai[G]) sin, missing the mark set by God’s holiness (hamartia[G]) and are rebuked, convicted (elegchō[G]) by the Torah[H]/Law (ho nomos[G], haTorah[H]) as Torah/law breakers (parabatēs[G]). 8 If, however, you are being filled with, the Kingly Torat/specific law/instruction according to the Writings/Scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself, [Lev. 19:18]” you are doing good. 9 But if you show partiality, favouritism, you are committing sin, missing the mark set by God’s holiness and are rebuked, convicted by the Torah/Law as Torah/law breakers. “If, however, you are being filled with, the Kingly Torat/specific law/instruction according to the Writings/Scripture” We must first take note of the specificity of Yaakov’s language regarding “law”. In this verse he speaks of a particular “Kingly” or “Royal” nomos[G]/torat[H] that is found in the fullness of the TaNaKh, or Ketuvim (Writings, Hebrew Bible). By quoting the very specific law (torat, a part of the Torah) “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Le. 19:18), Yaakov is passing on the teaching of His brother Yeshua the Messiah, Who summed up the Torah of Moses and the Prophets this way: 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Torah?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the head and great commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments hang the entire Torah and hanevi’im.” -Mattitiyahu (Matthew) 22:36-40 Yaakov calls the summation of Yeshua’s teaching on the Torah and the Prophets the “Kingly Torah”, as distinct from the Torah of Moses. As I have explained previously, while aspects of the Torah of Moses are present as part of the whole of the “Kingly Torah, Torah Perfected, Torah of Freedom”, the clear distinctions made by both Yaakov and Rav Shaul, based on the teaching of Yeshua, mean that we cannot simplistically understand Torah in these verses to refer to the Torah of Moses except when it is clearly qualified as it is in verse 9 where the Greek reads “ho nomos” the Torah. In verses 8-9 Yaakov speaks to those Jews called in Yeshua to act in accordance with the Kingly Torah of Yeshua and to recognize their hypocrisy in the face of both the Kingly Torah and the Torah of Moses. Parts of the Torah of Moses will pass away, but nothing of the Kingly Torah of Yeshua will ever pass away. Yaakov’s audience is Jewish, when they hear “torat” they understand a singular aspect of the Torah, and when they hear the words “ha Torah” at the end of verse 9 they recognize the Torah of Moses. Yaakov then, is linking the Kingly Torah of God’s Messiah with the Torah of Moses while making a clear distinction between the two. Therefore the Kingly Torah as understood through the lens of the pivotal verse, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” thus creating a unity of belief and action born in the freedom of Messiah’s teaching. The point being that Yaakov is not inventing a new kind of Torah, he is revealing the Torah filled with Messiah and driven by the Ruach ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit). As I have explained, there are parts of the Torah of Moses which will become obsolete at the point of final judgment and our entry into the Olam Haba (world to come), but as Messiah himself has said, “I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away not one minor or major mark will disappear from the Torah until all things are accomplished.” – Mattitiyahu/Matthew 5:18 “Zayit Ra’anan says… ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, says, “you sin in this world because the yetzer hara (evil inclination) governs you; but in the Olam haba (world to come), I will take it (yetzer ha-ra) away from you;” as it is said in Ezekiel 36:26 “I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”’” – Midrash Yalkut Shim’oni (medieval) When we abide in the Kingly Torah within Messiah we do well, recognizing the discipline and instruction of God. On the other hand, when we give in to the yetzer ha-ra “fallen inclination”, we cloud our ability to see the Kingly Torah (which brings liberty). When we wilfully break the Torah we deceive ourselves and are in danger of believing the lie that we are no longer secure. The irony here is that in showing favouritism we are endanger of believing that at some point we could lose God’s favour. Therefore, we must show others the favour that God has shown us in Messiah. “You shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people (Israel), and you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am YHVH.” -Leviticus 19:18 We note that “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” is the second clause in the commandment being quoted by Yaakov. The commandment begins by saying “You shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people (Israel)”. Therefore, Yaakov is addressing the problem of early Jewish believers discriminating not only against the poor and bedraggled but also against Gentile believers. “Owe no person anything, but to love one another: for those who love one another have fully filled the Torah.” -Rav shaul: Letter to the Roman Believers 13:8 Those who are focused on the Messiah and as a result love others as themselves are fully filling the Torah of Moses, whereas those focused on attempting to fully observe the Torah of Moses are continually failing to do so. With regard to Torah there is no “try”, there is only “Do” and “Do not”. How much better then to request that God manifest Himself in me through Yeshua, than to seek to reach Him through the delusional claim of Torah observance. 10 For whoever keeps, guards (tēreō[G]) the entire (holos[G]) Torah[H]/Law (nomos[G]), yet stumbles, falls, offends (ptaiō[G]) in one (heis[G]), has become guilty, subject (enochos[G]) of all, individually and collectively (pas[G]). 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do murder, you have made yourself (ginomai[G]) a breaker (parabatēs[G]) of the Torah[H]/Law (nomos[G]). 10 For whoever keeps, guards the entire Torah[H]/Law, yet stumbles, falls, offends in one, has become guilty, subject of all, individually and collectively. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do murder, you have made yourself a breaker of the Torah[H]/Law. Given the context this teaching says, “If you’re keeping most of the laws of the Torah but are breaking the Kingly law to love your neighbour as yourself, then the Torah exposes your guilt and you come under the judgement of the entire Torah.” Those who claim that Yaakov teaches Torah Observance are delusional. He is in fact teaching that Torah Observance (with the exception of Yeshua) is impossible. This is consistent with what Yaakov says in Acts 15. The early Jewish Fathers of the Body of believers agreed that Torah Observance was not incumbent on the Gentile believers. Those demanding that Gentile believers be circumcised were silenced by Rav Shaul (Paul), Yaakov, and Kefa (Peter). It is important to note that the two commandments mentioned here by Yaakov are to do with the love of one’s neighbour. It is often the case that as we journey with God we begin to become complacent. On a historical level the physical separation of the Messianic Jews in the Diaspora from the Jews of Israel was a living metaphor for their journey away from right action. When we become complacent in our faith we can fall into the trap of considering some commandments more important than others, thus we justify sinful action based on a sort of sin hierarchy where murder is bad but lusting after my neighbour’s wife is just what men are prone to do. Yaakov reminds his Jewish brothers and sisters that when we say to God, “I’ll keep most of your commandments but I don’t agree with this one, so I’ll just ignore it,” we are already guilty. As I have already stated, in more general terms Yaakov is teaching the one who says, “I am a Torah keeper” that such a statement is lie and thus breaks Torah. With the exception of Yeshua no one can claim to be a Torah keeper. I am obligated to add a further warning concerning a grave mis-teaching within the modern Messianic movement which makes Torah Observance an object of worship: Those who teach the lie "Obeying Torah is the fruit of salvation" mis-qualify both Torah and salvation. "Messiah is the goal of Torah" unto works of righteousness. Torah observance is not the goal, end, or fruit of Messiah. If it were, Messiah would be subject to Torah, but instead He is the Author and Goal of it. It is not Torah observance that is the fruit of the redeemed but right action. Ezekiel 36:26-27 explains that by the Spirit of Life (Holy Spirit) in Messiah Yeshua (Rom.8:2), we are empowered to act according to His (YHVH) prescribed (בְּקִרְבְּכֶם) way of living and according to His judgements (מִשְׁפָּטַי). Torah is not mentioned. Why? Because observance of the Torah of Moses is not the goal, end, or fruit. Thus we are "set free from the Torah of sin and death (the result of a failure to observe the unkeepable Mosaic Torah)" [Rom.8:2]. Peter (Rav Kefa) explains that no one can "bear" the "burden" of Torah observance (Acts 15:10). Yaakov (James) and the early Jewish Fathers of the body of faith along with Peter, agreed that therefore Gentile believers should not be taught Torah observance but to simply refrain from all forms of idolatry in accordance with the universally moral commandments of God (10 commandments minus Shabbat, which is a sign on ethnic Israel, the Jews [Ex.31:16-17]) Peter said this as a Spirit filled Messiah follower, not as an unsaved pre-Messianic Jew. Therefore, Peter and the early Jewish Fathers of the Body of believers agree that Torah observance is not the fruit of salvation. We add to this the teaching of Yeshua, Rav Shaul, and the Kohen (probably Barnabas) who wrote the Book to the Hebrews: Rom. 3:20; 4:14; 4:15; 5:20; 6:14; 7:1-13; 8:2-3, 1 Cor. 15:56, 2 Cor. 3:7; 3:9; 3:10; 3:12; 3:14-17, Gal. 2:16; 2:19; 2:21; 3:1;3:10; 3:11-12; 3:13; 3:16 & 19, (ref. Matt. 11:12-13, Luke 16:16), Gal. 3:21; 3:23; 4:24; Eph. 2:15, Phlp. 3:4-8; 1 Tim. 1:8 (Torah was made for the unrighteous, not for the righteous.) 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Heb. 7:18-19; 8:7-8; 8:13; 10:1. It is wrong to say that “Torah is done away with”, it is equally wrong to say that “Torah observance is the goal, end, fruit” or otherwise. When using "Torah" as a proper noun we speak in general terms that lack the nuisance of the wider definition. This is why the writers of the HaBrit HaChadashah (NT) often use qualifying terms in relationship to Torah (Instruction). "because through Messiah Yeshua the Torah* of the Spirit of life (Torah of Messiah) has set you free from the Torah* of sin and death. (Result of the failure to keep the unkeepable Torah of Moses)" -Romans 8:2 So called "Messianics" need to stop arguing over the keeping of days and the obeying of laws and return to the Person of Messiah Yeshua in God. No one will stand at the judgement and be able to use Torah observance as a means of redemption. If we claim to be Torah observant we make ourselves to be liars. As I have said, with regard to Torah there is no "try", there is “do” and “do not”. No human being (with the exception of the King Messiah) can keep the Torah perfectly. I do not keep the Torah, rather the Torah perfected of the Spirit of life keeps me in Messiah Yeshua. Those in the so called "Messianic" movement who claim to be Torah observant are lying. They are idolaters of the worst kind because in focusing on Torah they have turned their backs on the Author of it. It is for freedom that Messiah has set us free! *The word Torah must be qualified 12 So speak (laleō[G], davru[H]), and so do (poieō[G]), as those who are to be judged (krino[G]) by the Torah[H]/law (nomos[G], Torah[H]) of freedom, liberty (eleutheria[G], shel cheirut[H]). 13 For judgment (krisis[G], badiyn[H]) devoid of mercy (me eleos[G], eiyn rachamiym[H]) will be shown to one who has shown no mercy (me eleos[G], nahag rachamiym[H]); the mercy (eleos[G], harachamiym[H]) rejoices against, is glorious over, triumphs over, perpetually boasts against (katakauchaomai[G]) the judgment (krisis[G], hadiyn[H]). 14 What does it profit (ophelos[G]), my brothers and sisters, fellow Jews (mou adelphos[G], achay[H]) if someone says he has faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], emunah[H]), but he has no works, actions (me ergon[G])? Can faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], emunah[H]) save (sōzō[G], lehoshiyo[H]) him? 12 So speak, and so do, as those who are to be judged by the Torah[H]/law of freedom, liberty. 13 For judgment devoid of mercy will be shown to one who has shown no mercy; the mercy rejoices against, is glorious over, triumphs over, perpetually boasts against the judgment. 14 What does it profit, my brothers and sisters, fellow Jews if someone says he has faith, trust, belief, persuasion, but he has no works, actions? Can faith, trust, belief, persuasion save him? Yaakov admonishes his Jewish brothers and sisters who follow Messiah Yeshua to speak and act as those being judged, not by the Torah of Moses but by the Torah of Liberty. The wonderful result of accepting God’s mercy is that we will in turn show mercy to others, thus “Mercy triumphs over judgment” (that is mercy triumphs over a judgment of condemnation). Mercy triumphs in the judgment that brings discipline and freedom, thus we have the Torah of Messiah that brings Liberty. There are those who are uncomfortable with the plain Greek text saying “can faith save him?” They add to it translating “can that faith save him”. There is no need to add “that” to the text. One who is convinced that his faith need not be acted on does not accept the saving faith of Yeshua and therefore cannot be saved by faith. More to the point, faith cannot save, rather the Messiah Yeshua in Whom we place true faith, He is the Saviour. Thus Messiah in us outworks faith through us. We act righteously because we have received the nature of Messiah. Here Yaakov is speaking of a divisive faith, a faith that compartmentalizes life. The action of a pumping heart is the proof that a man is alive, when the heart ceases its action the body is dead. The predisposition of the Holy Spirit Who lives in us, is to help those in need, in order to fail to help the destitute we must first resist the Ruach ha-Kodesh, for a believer this is known as grieving (not blaspheming) the Spirit. The conclusion then is this, isolated faith is dead. In a believer however, the failure to act causes conviction of spirit and therefore revives the body. It is as if the heart has lost its rhythm temporarily for lack of vigour and then the Spirit pulls out the shock panels and gives us a jump start. 15 If a brother (adelphos[G], ach[H]) or sister (adelphē[G], achot[H]) is naked (gumnos[G]) and lacks (leipō[G]) daily (ephēmeros[G]) food, bread (lechem[H]) 16 and any one (tis[G]) of you says to them, “Go (hupagō[G]) in peace, wholeness, wellbeing (eirēnē[G], leshalom[H]), be warmed (thermainō[G]) and be filled (chortazō[G]),” yet you don’t give (didōmi[G]) them the things they need (epitēdeios[G]) for their body (sōma[G]), what use is that (ophelos[G], mah hoaltem[H])? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, bread 16 and any one of you says to them, “Go in peace, wholeness, wellbeing, be warmed and be filled,” yet you don’t give them the things they need for their body, what use is that? “is naked and lacks daily bread” “Give us today our daily bread” is part of the formula of Tefilat haTalmidim “The Disciples Prayer” taught by Yeshua the King Messiah (Matt. 6:9-13). Here Yaakov reminds his hearers that in relationship through Messiah they are to participate in godly acts of provision. What fool, having prayed “Give us today our daily bread”, then sends his believing brother or sister away without bread for the day? “Go in peace, wholeness, wellbeing, be warmed and be filled,” yet you don’t give them the things they need for their body, what use is that? To wish a fellow believer, in this case a fellow Jewish believer “Peace, wholeness, and wellbeing”, knowing that they are distressed, incomplete, unwell, and having the means to give them peace, wholeness and wellbeing, is an abhorrent act of rebellion against the specific Kingly Torah command “You shall love your neighbour as yourself!” 17 In the same way, faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], ha’emunah[H]) also, if it has no works, actions, deeds (ergon[G]) is dead, necrotic (nekros[G], meitah[H]) being alone, separate, apart (kata heautou[G], ). 18 But someone might say, “You have faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) and I have works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]); show me your faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) without the works, actions (ergon[G]), and I will show you my faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) by my works, actions (ergon[G]).” 17 In the same way, faith, trust, belief, persuasion also, if it has no works, actions, deeds is dead, necrotic being alone, separate, apart. 18 But someone might say, “You have faith and I have works, actions; show me your faith without the works, actions and I will show you my faith by my works, actions.” Yaakov is not saying “I will show you my faith by my Torah observance”, a curse on that idea! The works, actions in question are right actions, otherwise known as righteousness. Yaakov is saying “The evidence of my faith is in the right actions that proceed from it”. It is not Torah observance that produces Yaakov’s right actions but faith in Messiah that produces them. This is a foundational doctrine of the Messianic Faith that has been abused by far too many so called “Messianic” teachers who promote the false doctrine of “Torah Observance” in contradiction of the teaching of Yaakov, Yochanan and Rav Shaul. The Hebraic back and forth of Yaakov’s work is a reflection of Yeshua’s teaching style, and is in turn reflected in Rav Shaul’s works. It was and remains a strong rabbinical technique that acts to expose flawed or self-defeating thinking (circular logic). Like a heart that doesn’t pump blood, faith without action is dead. The words, “faith by itself without right action is dead,” are a precursor to the final words of this portion of Yaakov. It is important to note that faith in unity with right action is life. The blood, the heart and the oxygen are all required in order to unify the living body. It’s as if Yaakov were saying “Show me life in a heart that doesn’t beat and I will show you life in my beating heart!” “Really?” Says Yaakov, with incredulity. “You’re able to exhibit faith without acting righteously? Okay, but I will exhibit faith by acting in unity with the Holy Spirit.” Faith, being unseen cannot be seen except in action. Therefore, the one who fails to act proves himself faithless. Faith devoid of right action is not only a corpse, it is a necrotic, stinking corpse. Ironically, faith without the evidence of right action produces a spiritual stench in the nostrils of the faithful. 19 You believe (pisteuō[G]) that the God (ho Theos[G], haElohiym[H]) is one (heis[G], echad[H]) well done (poieō kalōs[G]); the demons (ho daimonion[G], hasheidiym[H]) also believe (pisteuō[G]), and shudder, tremble, stiffen, are horrified (phrissō[G]). 20 Now (de[G]) are you willing to know, act on the knowledge (ginōskō[G]), you vain, empty (kenos[G]) person (anthrōpos[G], iysh[H]), that faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], emunah[H]) without works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) is barren, dead, necrotic (nekros[G], akarah[H])? 19 You believe that the God is one well done; the demons also believe, and shudder, tremble, stiffen, are horrified. 20 Now are you willing to know, act on the knowledge, you vain, empty person, that faith, trust, belief, persuasion without works, actions is barren, dead, necrotic? Many, lacking knowledge of ancient Biblical Jewish practice, and indeed of Jewish practice in general, fail to understand just how harsh these words of Yaakov are, even beyond their apparent abruptness. Yaakov is pulling out the big guns. One can see why prior to this he had instructed his hearers to be quick to listen and slow to anger (1:19-20). Yaakov is quite literally quoting the Shema in the present verse. “You say, ‘Shema (hear, listen, perceive and understand), Oh Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is Echad (One, a unity).’ Be’seder, okay, good for you, so you recite the Shema three times a day, mazel tov (Congratulations)! The demons know the words of the Shema also, they believe that God is One, and it scares the crap out of them. You see, belief is subject to inclination. If your inclination is evil (yetzer ha-ra) then your belief is redundant. Further to the insult, the Greek kenos (empty, vain) interprets the Hebrew/Aramaic Raka, Reyka used in Matthew 5:22. This is yet another example of how context and motivation affect the interpretation and application of Scripture. Yeshua teaches that no one should call another by the term Raka from a motivation of willing death on them. However, in the context of Yaakov’s writing, describing a foolish person as a fool is a valid application of Biblical doctrine. 21 Was our father (Avinu[H]) Avraham[H] not justified (dikaioō[G]) by works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) when he bore, lead, offered (anapherō[G]) up his son Yitzchak[H] (Isaac) on the altar (thusiastērion[G], haMizbeach[H])? 22 You see that faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], haemunah[H]) together (sunergeō[G]) with his works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]), and as a result of the works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]), faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], emunah[H]) was made perfect, fully filled, made whole, well-constructed (teleioō[G], hush’lemah[H]). 21 Was our father Avraham not justified by works, actions when he bore, led, offered up his son Yitzchak (Isaac) on the altar? 22 You see that faith, trust, belief, persuasion together with his works, actions, and as a result of the works, actions, faith, trust, belief, persuasion was made perfect, fully filled, made whole, well-constructed. Yaakov is not saying that Avraham was justified by actions alone but that his right actions were evidence of his faith and thus he was justified. This is affirmed by verse 22. Notice that Avraham’s actions were born of faith. Right action is the fruit of faith, the evidence of healthy roots, and just as a fruit tree is imperfect without fruit, so faith without right action is barren. Yaakov uses the word complete/full/perfect, here in unity with the word One/echad from the previous verses. He is showing that God, Who is One, Completes or makes One, faith and action. “In faith, trust, assurance, belief Avraham, when he was examined, proved, brought up Yitzchak [Isaac], and the one who had received the promises was offering up his only son;” -Hebrews 11:17 (Author’s translation) 23 and the Scripture, TaNaKh (Torah, Prophets, Writings), [Hebrew Bible] (ho graphē[G], hakatuv[H]) was fulfilled (plēroō[G]) which says, “And Avraham believed, agreed with (pisteuō[G], vayamein[H]) God (Theos[G], Elohiym[H]), and it was counted (logizomai[G]) to him as righteousness, charity, practical love (dikaiosunē[G], tzedakah[H]), [Gen. 15:6]” and he was called a friend (philos[G]) of God (Theos[G], Elohiym[H]). 24 You see, perceive (horaō[G]) therefore, now truly (toinun[G]) that a person is justified (dikaioō[G]) by works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) and not by faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) alone (monon[G]). 23 and the Scripture, TaNaKh, Hebrew Bible was fulfilled which says, “And Avraham believed, agreed with God, and it was counted to him as righteousness, charity, practical love, [Gen. 15:6]” and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see, perceive therefore, now truly that a person is justified by works, actions and not by faith alone. So, Avraham’s faith/belief/trust, was credited to him as right action. Now we see right action as the recompense/payment/credit/reward of right faith/trust/belief. The declaration of a man’s righteousness is made by those who observe his right action, while the right action itself is the declaration of right faith. 25 In the same way, was Rachav[H] the prostitute (pornē[G]) not justified (dikaioō[G]) by works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) also when she allowed entry to (hupodechomai[G]) the messengers, angels (aggelos[G], malakhiym[H]) and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body (sōma[G], shehaguf[H]) without the spirit (pneuma[G], ruach[H]) is dead (nekros[G], meit[H]), so also faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) without works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) is dead (nekros[G], meitah[H]). 25 In the same way, was Rachav the prostitute not justified by works, actions also when she allowed entry to the messengers, angels and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works, actions is dead. “And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.” -Joshua 2:1 “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” -Hebrews 11:31 It was Rahab’s faith in the God of Israel that motivated her to act to save her children and protect her family. She rightly believed that God was able to destroy the city of Jericho. Therefore her genuine faith bore the fruit of right action. Finally, “Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so to faith without right action is dead.” The spirit and faith correlate to one another and the body and action are also a pair. From this we can conclude that both these combinations (faith and works as well as spirit and body) become unclean when separated. To a Jew a dead body (according to the Torah) is unclean, so Yaakov is making a startling, even defiling insinuation. “If your faith lacks right action you are spiritually unclean and if your actions lack true faith then your actions are unclean. I know you’ve been living in the Diaspora among Greeks for some time now but don’t be misled by Greek philosophy,” says Yaakov, “they seek to divide and conquer, or have you forgotten that we Jews understand life as a unity, a functioning being of many parts, all interconnected. ‘Shema Yisrael, Adonai, Elohaynu, Adonai echad!’” “the body without the spirit is dead.” This is a known Jewish saying, recorded in Ohel Moed, fol. 15. 1. “Therefore we conclude that a person is justified by faith without the works of the Torah.” -Romans 3:28 When we place this teaching of Yaakov alongside that of Rav Shaul we see that Yaakov is emphasising the right action born of faith as being “works”. He is not saying that Torah observance is the right action but that right action is evidence of the Kingly Torah taught by Messiah, which is at work in the believer. Torah observance is motivated by human effort whereas right action results from relationship, that relationship being offered by God and received by the believer. Thus, Avraham first believed God and subsequently offered up his son Isaac. Note that the Torah was yet to be given to Israel at the point of Avraham’s belief and right action. Therefore, Avraham was not seeking to observe Torah but rather to respond to God in righteousness, thus Avraham’s unified faith in action was credited to him as righteousness. In Messiah Yeshua there is no separation of faith and works. There are faith-works and there is working-faith. When Shaul/Paul says, “You are saved by faith alone, and not by works, that no one might boast,” he is rebuking boasting (which is work without faith). We are better to understand Paul this way, “It is by faith unified that you are saved and not by works (deeds devoid of faith) so that no one should boast about having earned their own right standing with God.” Shaul is definitely not contradicting Yaakov, a man whose authority he both submitted to and respected. On the contrary, Shaul affirms Yaakov’s teaching. Of course this should come as no surprise, given that the Ruach ha-Kodesh inspired the words of both men. I will conclude this way, concerning faith and right action: what God has made one, let no man separate. © 2022 Yaakov Brown When the Master of the Universe enters time and space for the purpose of redeeming humanity, His life and actions, His death and resurrection transcend the limits of this world so that the present fallen world is quite literally incapable of containing all that could be written about Him. The Gospels’ of Matthew and Mark mention that Yeshua would appear to the talmidim (disciples) in the Galilee following His resurrection (Mt. 28:7, 10, Mk. 16:7).
Matthew records one such appearance (Mt. 28:16-20), which occurs after the appearance recorded in the present chapter of Yochanan’s Gospel. 1After these things Yeshua[H] revealed (phaneroo[G]) Himself again to the talmidim[H] (disciples) at the Sea (yam[H]) of Tiberias[G] (from the Tiber [a river god], named for the Roman Emperor Tiberias), and He revealed (phaneroo[G]) Himself in this way: 2 Shimon[H] (Hears) K’fa[H] (Peter: rock), T’oma[H] (twin) who was called Didymus[G] (twofold), Netan’el[H] (Gift of God/The Judge, [Bar Tulmay: Covenant son of paths]) of Kana[H] (reed) in Galiyl[H] (Galilee, circuit) the sons of Zavdiy[H] (Zebedee, “My Bride Price” from zeved: dowry, endowment, gift [Yaakov/James & Yochanan/John]) and two others of His talmidim[H] (disciples) were together. “After these things” refers to the resurrection of the Messiah, His appearance to Miriyam (Mary of Magdala), and His two appearances to His disciples. There is no way to determine exactly how long after these events the present appearance takes place. We know that Yeshua continued to appear to the disciples (wider group of followers) for forty days [Acts 1:3] following His resurrection and ascended to the heavens ten days prior to Shavuot (Pentecost) and the outpouring of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) [Acts 2]. “Were together”, in expectation of seeing Yeshua again according to the message relayed by Miriyam Magdala and the other Miriyam,“Tell my brothers to go to the Galilee and there they will see Me.” (Matthew 28:7, 10). It is likely that they were in a familiar place, like the shore near K’far Nachum (Capernaum: Village of Comfort) where K’fa (Peter) lived. The present events took place over two days, the disciples decided to fish through the night (v.3). “the sons of Zavdiy[H]” are perhaps mentioned in order to bring the wider Gospel narrative in full circle (Mark 1:19-20). The meaning of their father’s name denotes prophetic foreknowledge of the One Who would pay the “Bride price” for His Bride. “two others of His talmidim[H]” These are thought to be Andrew and Philip; which is very likely, since they were both of Beit Tzaida (Bethsaida: House of hunting/fishing)[John 1:44], a city in the Galilee region not far from Yam Kinneret (lake Galilee). One year during my childhood (aged 10 years old) my Sabba (Grandfather) arranged to have the younger children in our community gather at the beach on yom sheniy (Monday) following Pesach (Passover). Earlier that same morning he took my brothers and I out in a small boat approximately 100 meters from shore where we waited with freshly caught fish on ice in a cooler. My Sabba had arranged for two women from our community to bring the young children and pre-teens to the beach to read the account of John 21. At a certain time, as the account was read to the youths, they looked up to see us returning to shore in my Sabba’s boat, it was my job to play K’fa (Peter), I dove over the side of the boat and rushed into shore to the excited cheers of the other young boys and girls of our youth group. In hind sight I was the best choice for K’fa (Peter), excitable and brash at times, my far more gracious brother David Ben Yehoshua (Philip), suited the role of Yochanan the contemplator and my youngest brother Israel Ben Yehoshua (Stephen) at the age of three or four years was probably busy trying to catch more fish off the back of the boat with no bait on his hook. Once the boat came ashore we unloaded the fish and made a coal fire on the beach to cook the fish over and share among the youth group. A wonderful kinetic memory attached to the history of our Messianic brothers, the first to believe. 3 Shimon[H] (Hears) K’fa[H] (Peter: rock) said to them, “I’m going fishing.” They said to him, “We’re also coming with you.” They went out and got into the boat immediately; and that night (nux[G], specifically midnight) they caught nothing. 4 But when the dawn (proia[G]) was now come (ginomai[G]), Yeshua[H] stood on the shore; yet the talmidim[H] (disciples) did not see, perceive (eido[G]) that it was Yeshua[H]. “I’m going fishing.” They said to him, “We’re also coming with you.” Our Jewish sages say that fishing is one of ten traditions that Joshua delivered to the children of Israel when he divided up the land to apportion it to each tribe as God had commanded: "that any man should be free to catch fish in the waters (or sea) of Tiberias; and he might fish with an hook only; but he might not spread a net, or place a ship there, except the children of the tribe to whom that sea belonged in their division.''-Maimonides. Hilch. Nezike Maramon, c. 5. sect. 3. Vid. Talmud Bavliy Bava Kama, fol. 81. 1. "in a place of running water no clean fish goes along with unclean fish, and lo, the sea of Tiberias is as running waters". -T. Hieros. Avoda Zara, fol. 42. 1. Sadly, some commentators, both Christian and Messianic in their revisionist need to impugn the character of the disciples rather than honour the integrity of these called out ones, say that by returning to fishing “Peter was going back to his old way of life having failed to understand the commission of Jesus (John 20:21)”. Utter nonsense! Peter and the six other disciples with him needed to eat, they knew how to fish, so they fished for food. It’s not rocket science. Furthermore, if we are to read anything into the fishing practice of the post resurrection lives of the disciples, it should be that the disciples continued to fish because it was a physical reminder to them of their new spiritual role as fishers of humanity, a fulfilment of Israel’s role as “a light to the nations” (Mt. 4:19). The same aforementioned commentators claim that the disciples caught nothing because they were fishing of their own strength. What garbage. It is far more likely that they caught nothing so that they would recognise the repeated miracle of Yeshua (Luke 5:3-7) and understand that it was truly the resurrected Messiah who was speaking to them from the shore. If commentators wish to impugn the character of the historical men and women of the Scriptures, let them do so with discernment and sober judgement or let them beware. The standard English translation “yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus” only partially conveys the meaning of the text. The Greek “eido” means “to see”, both literal and cognitive sight is denoted, which adds an important dimension to the contextual meaning. They did “see (the man on the shore)” Yeshua but they did not “see (recognise)” Him. 5 So Yeshua[H] said to them, “Little children, infants (paidion[G]), you don’t have any fish to eat, do you?” They answered Him, “No.” “Yeshua[H] said to them, “Little children, infants (paidion[G]), you don’t have any fish to eat, do you?” In today’s society Yeshua’s words might be considered patronizing or even demeaning, unless spoken perhaps by a beloved father to a mature son. The language is intimate from the outset. Yeshua does not say, “Hey you out there” or “Hey, chaverim (friends)” or even “Shalom achim (brothers)”. But “little children, you don’t have any fish do you?” Perhaps their hearts began to stir as they heard these words, perhaps they recalled a previous mashal (parable) “If a son asks his father… for a fish will he give him a snake? (Mt. 7:69-11; Luke 11:11). 6 And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat, and you will discover (heurisko[G]).” So they cast, and then they were not able to pull it in because of the multitude of fish. “Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat, and you will discover (heurisko[G]).” Discover what? Fish yes, but more than that, the Creator of fish, the resurrected King Messiah. “and then they were not able to pull it in because of the multitude of fish.” This had happened before by the command of Yeshua (Luke 5:5). 7 Therefore that talmid (disciple) whom Yeshua[H] loved completely (agapao[G]) said to K’fa[H] (Peter: rock), “It is the Lord (ho Kurios[G], Ha-Adon[H])!” So when Shimon[H] (Hears) K’fa[H] (Peter: rock) heard that it was the Lord (ho Kurios[G], Ha-Adon[H]), he put on his outer garment (for he was naked [gumnos[G]]), and without a second thought threw (ballo[G]) himself into the sea (yam[H]). Up to this point in His gospel Yochanan (John) the author has called himself “the disciple whom Yeshua loved as a dear friend (phileo[G])”, now he refers to himself as “the disciple whom Yeshua loved completely (agapao[G])”. This doesn’t mean that Yeshua’s love for John has changed but that John’s understanding of Yeshua’s love for him has changed. We note that it is the beloved disciple who first recognises Yeshua. It is Yochanan who first speaks the words “It is the Lord”, and Peter who abandons everything and dives into the water. The dynamic duo of revelation and participation. What a mighty example of brothers in unity focused on the King Messiah Yeshua to the glory of God. Remember, in the pre-Greco-Roman Hebrew world there was no word for theology, there was faith and action made echad (one) alone. Yeshua came to cause us to return to true faith and to reconcile us to God through His blood, placed on the heavenly altar for the remission of our sin. 8 But the other talmidim[H] (disciples) came in the little boat, for they were not far from the shore, but about 90 meters away, dragging the net of fish. 9 So when they got out on the land, they saw a coal (anthrakia[G]) fire made and fish[plural] (daggim[H]) placed on it, and bread (lechem[H]). There is a beautiful prophetic allegory in the disciples’ dragging of the multitude of fish. These were those who would bring the Gospel of Yeshua to the people of Israel and subsequently to the nations, being the light to the nations that Israel had been called to be, and the fishers of human beings that Yeshua had called them to be. Here they were dragging a net so full of fish it could not be brought into the boat but instead required several men to drag it to shore. A promise of the salvation to come. 10 Yeshua[H] said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have just now caught.” 11 So Shimon[H] (Hears) K’fa[H] (Peter: rock) went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish (daggim gedoliym[H]), 153; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. Peter doesn’t just bring “some of the fish”, he drags the entire net (probably with the help of the other disciples). This is a testimony to Peter’s character and the fact that he always sought to go above and beyond what was asked of him. It is perhaps also a prophetic testimony of his role in leadership among the early fathers of the body of faith. The fish were large as opposed to some of the smaller varieties found in the lake. This signifies the abundant goodness of God to His faithful children. The number “153” is significant but cannot be interpreted with certainty. It is unwise as some do, to use gematria (numerology) to determine the meaning of this number because there are many Hebrew words that when calculated have the sum 153. Nor is it tenable to conjecture metaphorical, scientific or mathematic meaning as some of the Gentile Church fathers of later centuries C.E. have. The reality is that we know only this for certain, it was a lot of big fish and it was a miracle that the net didn’t break. 12 Yeshua[H] said to them, “Come, have breakfast.” None of the talmidim[H] (disciples) dared (tolmao[G]) to ask Him, “Who are You?” seeing, perceiving (eido[G]) that it was the Lord.13 Yeshua[H] came and took the bread (ha-lechem[H]) and gave it to them, and the fish also. This text tells us at least two things plainly. There was something significantly different about Yeshua’s resurrected body and appearance that caused the disciples to be confused in the certain knowledge that it was Yeshua, or perhaps they were still trying to get their heads around the fact that Yeshua was resurrected and remained on earth, in the Land (Israel) with them. Second, they were certain that it was Yeshua and therefore didn’t dear to entertain the idea that it wasn’t by asking Him Who He was. Just as He had eaten with them at His first appearance to them corporately, so to here He passes around the food and (though the text does not state it explicitly) likely joined them in eating the fish and bread, just as He had eaten the fish at His previous appearance to them (Luke 24:42-43). For each of us who follow Yeshua the same words are said to us each morning, “Come have breakfast…” 14 This was now the third time that Yeshua[H] revealed Himself to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead. Yeshua’s first two appearances to the disciples are recorded in John 20. Yeshua reconciles Peter in Love (Verses 15-17): The three questions of love convey Yeshua’s forgiveness concerning the threefold denial of Peter (John 18:17, 25-27). 15 Now when they had finished breakfast, Yeshua[H] said to Shimon[H] (Hears) K’fa[H] (Peter: rock), “Shimon[H] (Hears), of Yonah[H] (dove), do you love Me completely (agapao[G]) more than these?” He (Peter) said to Him (Yeshua), “Yes, Lord (ken Adon[H]); You see, perceive (eido[G]) that I love you as a dear friend (phileo[G]).” He (Yeshua) said to him (Peter), “feed (bosko[G]) My little lambs (arnion[G]).” Yeshua knew the answer to the question before He asked it of Peter. The question was for Peter’s sake. Peter was yet to understand the fullness of love that he would come to have for Yeshua. Therefore, Yeshua was proving Peter for his good, so that Peter might mature in love. Yeshua asks, “do you love Me completely (agapao[G]) more than these?” In order for Peter to lead the leaders of the redeemed community He must first be certain of his complete love for Yeshua (God with us), acknowledging Yeshua above all others, even his best friend John and the other dear disciples whom he has suffered with in spiritual brotherhood. Peter does not respond by saying “I love you completely (agapao)” but with the words, “You see that I love You as a dear friend (phileo).” Yeshua is helping Peter to understand that his responses to Yeshua show a need for growth in his love for Yeshua because it is Yeshua’s intention to assign Peter the role of leader of the full variety of sheep among the children of Israel (ethnic, religious, empirical, chosen) who are coming to faith, and over the sheep that are not of the sheepfold of Israel (Gentile believers are not Jews, spiritual Jews or otherwise, but are chosen uniquely according to their own identities to be members of the commonwealth of Israel, and to share in the promises of God. Share, not appropriate) whom Yeshua knew in advance (John 10:16). It will be Peter’s role to direct the growth and discipleship of the believers and therefore, requires him to submit more fully to the Yeshua in complete love (agapao). “feed (bosko[G]) My little lambs (arnion[G]).” In short, literally “feed the children who belong to Me”, and spiritually, “feed the new believers”. The first conclusion denotes “feeding” with God’s Word (Scripture, and Yeshua’s Living Word) for the “new believers” lambs. 16 He (Yeshua) said to him (Peter) again, a second time, “Shimon[H] (Hears), of Yonah[H] (dove), do you love Me completely (agapao[G])?” He (Peter) said to Him (Yeshua), “Yes, Lord (ken Adon[H]); You see, perceive (eido[G]) that I love you as a dear friend (phileo[G]).” He (Yeshua) said to him (Peter), “Shepherd (poimaino[G]) My mature sheep (probation[G]).” Yeshua asks a second time, “do you love Me completely (agapao[G])?” Peter responds as before saying, “You see that I love You as a dear friend (phileo).” This indicates that Peter is at this point more concerned with being emphatic about his genuine love for Yeshua than he is in trying to understand why Yeshua is using specific terminology or teaching Peter in living mashal (parable). Yeshua says, “Shepherd (poimaino[G]) My mature sheep (probation[G]).” Formerly Yeshua had asked Peter to “feed” His lambs, a role that could be performed by a friend or employee. Now Yeshua asks Peter to become a Shepherd of His mature sheep, a role that would be trusted only to a member of the family. The Good Shepherd (Yeshua) is asking one of the sheep to become a shepherd in His (Yeshua’s) Name. 17 He (Yeshua) said to him (Peter) the third time, “Shimon[H] (Hears), of Yonah[H] (dove), do you love Me as a dear friend (phileo[G])?” K’fa[H] (Peter: rock) was sorrowful, grief stricken (lupeo[G]) because He (Yeshua) had said to him (Peter) the third time, “Do you love Me as a dear friend (phileo[G])?” And he (Peter) said to Him, “My Lord (Adoniy[H]), You see, perceive (eido[G]) all things; You know (ginosko[G]) that I love You as a dear friend (phileo[G]).” Yeshua[H] said to him, “feed (bosko[G]) My mature sheep (probation[G]), [Aramaic alt. r’iy liy n’kavatiy[A] {shepherd my ewes[fem.]}]’. In His third question Yeshua is recorded as changing the word He uses for love to phileo (friendship). He says, “do you love Me as a dear friend (phileo[G])?” This is in response to Peter’s insistence and repeated use of the word for the love of friendship (phileo). It is as if Yeshua is providing Peter with the opportunity to see that true friendship will require sacrifice, which is the evidence of complete love (agapao). “K’fa[H] (Peter: rock) was sorrowful, grief stricken (lupeo[G]) because He (Yeshua) had said to him (Peter) the third time, “Do you love Me as a dear friend (phileo[G])?” We must be careful here to understand that the first two times Yeshua had asked Peter if “completely loved” (agapao) Him, but this time He asked if Peter “loved” Him “as a friend” (phileo). Peter notices the change in language and the challenge to his professed love of friendship and is sorrowful, not because he believes Yeshua doubts his love but because he realises that Yeshua is showing him that his failure to be a true friend by acknowledging his support for Yeshua when he was asked of his affiliation during the pre-trial (John 18:17, 25-27) requires repentance. Peter’s sorrow is repentant sorrow. Therefore, in repentance Peter says, “You see, perceive (eido[G]) all things; You know (ginosko[G]) that I love You as a dear friend (phileo[G]).” Meaning: “I know Who You are and that you not only see (eido) but also know (ginosko) all things including what is in my heart. You know that I want to go on from here exhibiting the love of a true friend toward you. I get that I have no right to expect Your trust having let you down so severely. I love You.” To which Yeshua responds: “feed (bosko[G]) My mature sheep (probation[G]), [Aramaic alt. r’iy liy n’kavatiy[A] {shepherd my ewes[fem.]}]’. In short: “I trust you with My flock, that’s how truly forgiven you are My dear friend.” “Feed My mature sheep” denotes the need to continue to feed the Word (Scripture and Living) to those who mature in the faith so as to keep them from falling away. Maturity is as susceptible, if not more so, to the temptation of sin, and the Word (food) of God is a guardian against the lies of the evil one. The Aramaic text uses the feminine “ewe” and means that the entire discussion sums up all members of the flock (community), children, men, and women. In other words, “feed My children, shepherd My men, feed My women,” “A human being does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.” -D’varim (Deuteronomy) 8:3 [Matthew 4:4] 18 Amen[H] [G]Amen[H] [G] (B’emet[H], B’emet[H]), In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain I tell you, when you were young (neos, neoteros[G]), you used to put on your belt and walk wherever you wanted; but when you grow old (gerasko[G]), you will stretch out your hands and someone else will put your belt on you, and bring you where you don’t want to go.” 19 Now He (Yeshua) said this, indicating by what kind of death he (Peter) would glorify God (Elohiym[H]). And when He (Yeshua) had said this, He (Yeshua) said to him (Peter), “Follow, join, attend to (akoloutheo[G]) Me!” Early Church tradition says that Roman authorities sentenced Peter to death by crucifixion “with arms outstretched” at the time of the Great Fire of Rome in the year 64 CE. In accordance with the Apocryphal Acts of Peter (200 CE), he was crucified head down. Church history confirms Peter’s crucifixion at the hands of Rome (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 1. 2. C 25.) 20 K’fa[H] (Peter: rock) turned around and saw the talmid (disciple) whom Yeshua[H] loved completely (agapao[G]) following—the one who also had leaned back on His (Yeshua’s) chest at the sacred meal (deipnon[G], Pesach Seder[H], Passover meal) and said, “My Lord (Adoniy[H]), who is the one who is betraying You?” 21 So K’fa[H] (Peter: rock), upon seeing him (the beloved disciple John), said to Yeshua[H], “My Lord (Adoniy[H]), and what about this man?” Peters concern for John was not the disgruntled complaint of a petulant child, as some foolish commentators suggest. Rather it was genuine concern for John’s inclusion in the work of leading Yeshua’s flock, and an interest in what type of sacrificial death he too would die. The context and explicit speech of Mark 10:38-39 indicates that both Yaakov (James) and Yochanan (John, the author of this Gospel) will drink the cup of sacrificial death that Yeshua was to drink. Church tradition says that John died in Ephesus (Polycrates, St Irenaeus). We must remember that Peter is in a post repentant state when he shows concern for John, he is still cherishing the emotional and spiritual relief of receiving Yeshua’s forgiveness and the role of shepherd. 22 Yeshua[H] said to him (Peter), “If I want him (John) to remain until I come, what is that to you? You join, attend to (akoloutheo[G]) Me!” 23 Therefore this account went out among the brothers, that that talmid[H] (disciple: John) would not die; yet Yeshua[H] did not say to him (Peter) that he (John) would not die, but, “If I want him (John) to remain until I come, what is that to you?” Yeshua reminds Peter that He had asked him “Do you love me completely, more than these?” It was kind of Peter to be concerned for John but it was not what was needed. Yeshua admonishes Peter to “Follow Me”. What is important is what Yeshua wants, and not what Peter wants. Verses 23 through 25 appear to be the work of someone close to John who completed the manuscript following John’s death. 24 This is the talmid[H] (disciple) who is testifying about these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is absolutely true (alethes[G], emet[H]). 25 But there are also many other things which Yeshua[H] did, which, if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. This last verse indicates that someone other than John recorded the last few words of John’s Gospel just as Joshua had completed the Torah following the death of Moses. Alternatively, John is simply adjusting his style of writing to include the early believers as corporate participants in the passing on of his Gospel. Once again emphasis is placed on the fact that this is a first-hand account of events from the mouth of the beloved disciple John. Reliable eyewitness testimony from a trustworthy witness. Historical fact. The purpose of this Gospel is to reveal Yeshua as the all existing promised Messiah and Redeemer of Israel, the Author and goal of the Torah, the Lamb of God, and the Creator of the Universe present with us (Imanu-El). Yochanan, the author has included only those things which are relevant to his message and thus has left out untold events of Yeshua’s life, some of which are alluded to in the other Gospels but many of which remain unrecorded. It is not mere hyperbole for the author to say “there are also many other things which Yeshua[H] did, which, if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” When the Master of the Universe enters time and space for the purpose of redeeming humanity, His life and actions, His death and resurrection transcend the limits of this world so that the present fallen world is quite literally incapable of containing all that could be written about Him. Copyright 2020 Yaakov Brown The message here is that the resurrected body is both corporeal and transcendent, solid and fluid, physical and spiritual and therefore meta-physical, super-natural. Most of all, this shows that time, space and matter are subject to Yeshua’s resurrected body. NB:Accounts of Yeshua’s resurrection appearances: Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24
1 Now on the first (heis[G], echad[H]) day of the week Miriyam[H] (rebellion, Mary) of Magdala[A] (a tower) came early in the morning (proi[G], fourth watch: 3am – 6am, ba’boker[H]) while it was still dark (choshekh[H]), to the tomb, grave (mnemeion[G], ha-kaver[H]) and saw (blepo[G]) the stone (lithos[G]) removed (airo[G]) from the tomb, grave (mnemeion[G], ha-kaver[H]). 2 So she ran and came to Shimon[H] (Hears) K’fa[H] (Peter: rock) and to the other disciple (talmid[H]) whom Yeshua[H] loved as a dear friend (phileo[G]), and said to them, “They have taken the Lord (ho kurios[G]. HaAdonai[H]) from the tomb, grave (mnemeion[G], ha-kaver[H]), and I (ana[A] Aramaic is singular. The Greek is plural “we”) don’t know where they’ve placed Him.” “On the first day of the week” means sometime between sundown Saturday (Shabbat) and sundown Sunday (Yom Rishon). This is three days and nights following Yeshua’s crucifixion on the Wednesday (Yom Revi’i), making this the day following the weekly Shabbat and not the Shabbat[H] Megas[G] (High Shabbat: John 19:31) of unleavened bread. “Miriyam of Magdala came early in the morning while it was still dark”. The Greek “proi” refers to the fourth watch of night observed between 3am and 6am. Miriyam had waited until the completion of the Shabbat to come to the tomb. This shows a desperate devotion on the part of Miriyam, a kind of devotion that is sometimes looked down upon in faith communities as being “emotionalism”. It should be noted that Yeshua appears first to a woman, and not just any woman but a woman who had previously been considered of ill repute and out of whom Yeshua had cast sevenfold demonic forces (Luke 8:2). The writer of John’s Gospel has pointed to Yeshua as God with us (Imanu-El) from the beginning and now makes a correlation between the beginning of creation and the beginning of Yeshua’s recreative act of resurrection which will birth a new creation for all who receive Him. “While it was still dark…” Begins the recreation narrative and is to be compared to Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was a formless and desolately empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep,” Isaiah the prophet also prophecies these events… “For behold, darkness will cover the earth And deep darkness the peoples; But the Lord will rise upon you And His glory will appear upon you. 3 Nations will come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising.” -Isaiah 60:2-3 NASB “So she ran and came to Shimon[H] K’fa[H] and to the other disciple whom Yeshua[H] loved as a dear friend…” Yochanan the unnamed disciple and writer of this gospel is recording what Miriyam of Magdala had testified to. “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and I don’t know where they’ve placed Him.” The Aramaic “I” seems a better fit with the context, however the other gospels speak of “women” plural going to the grave which is equally likely to be what Miriyam is referring to. Therefore, both “I” and “We” are correct. “They have taken Him” May refer to the Romans, the servants of the chief priests or to any other disgruntled group. Ironically later rabbinical Jewish polemics seeking to deny Yeshua’s resurrection claim that Yeshua’s own disciples took away His body in order to fabricate the resurrection. 3 So K’fa[H] (Peter: rock) and the other disciple (talmid[H]) left, and they were going to the tomb, grave (mnemeion[G], ha-kaver[H]). 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple (talmid[H]) swiftly outran K’fa[H] (Peter: rock), and came to the tomb, grave (mnemeion[G], ha-kaver[H]) first; 5 and he stooped down (parakupto[G]) to look (blepo[G]), and saw the linen strips (othonion[G]) lying there; however he did not go in. Here Yochanan, one prone to humility none the less records accurately that he arrived at the tomb first but was hesitant to go in. One of the reasons for this may have been his association with the priesthood and the perceived Torah restrictions regarding priests and dead bodies. Another reason may have been fearful expectation. We can only surmise and conclude conjecture. 6 So Shimon[H] (Hears) K’fa[H] (Peter: rock) also came, following him (Yochanan), and he (Peter) entered the tomb (mnemeion[G], ha-kaver[H]); and he examined (theoreo[G])the linen strips (othonion[G]) lying there, 7 and the face-cloth (soudarion[G]) which had been on His head, not lying with the linen strips (othonion[G]) but folded up in a place by itself. Yochanan records K’fa (Peter) as being as tenacious as ever. It is K’fa who examines the tomb and the specific carved out birth where Yeshua had been laid. He checks the linen burial strips and investigates the folded face cloth. The description of the grave cloths and face cloth is exceptional. The linen strips of grave cloths were lying as if the body had simply left through them without disrupting them, thus leaving them lying flat like the skin of a perforated seed pod. Second, the face cloth had been folded. There is of course prolifically reported pseudo learned nonsense regarding the cloth being likened to a napkin being folded at the end of a Jewish meal. It is nonsense for a number of reasons. First, this is not an all-inclusive custom in Judaism nor can it be well documented as being the custom in the first century. Second, Yeshua was not finishing a meal, He was beginning a re-creation. Third, identifying a ritually defiled burial cloth with a napkin used to wipe the face during a meal is an abhorrent idea that breaks numerous Torah restrictions regarding ritual purity and spiritual cleansing. What is important about the folded face cloth is that it denotes a transcendent and seemingly contradictory reality. Yeshua’s resurrected body moved through the linen strips leaving them lying there without need for folding, while at the same time the facecloth was likely removed by Yeshua and folded. This correlates to the fact that Yeshua will soon be recorded as having walked through walls into a room of locked doors while at the same time being in a corporeal state that allows T’oma to touch His wounds (v.19-28). The message here is that the resurrected body is both corporeal and transcendent, solid and fluid, physical and spiritual and therefore meta-physical, super-natural. Most of all, this shows that time, space and matter are subject to Yeshua’s resurrected body. This affirms the Biblical Jewish belief in the meta-physical resurrection of the dead and directly opposes Gnosticism and its derivative Christian scholarship delusion of a heaven filled with the spirits of human beings devoid of corporeal nature. The promised Olam Haba (World to come) is both illuminated and affirmed by the New Testament accounts. 8 So the other disciple (talmid[H]) who had arrived at the tomb, grave (mnemeion[G], ha-kaver[H]) first then also entered, and he saw (eido[G]) and believed, was persuaded, trusted (pisteuo[G], vaya’amein[H]). 9 For they did not yet understand the Writing (Graphe[G], ha-Katuv[H], Scripture), that He must rise from the dead. 10 So the disciples (talmidim[H]) went away again to their own homes. That which had been examined by K’fa was now seen by Yochanan and as a result Yochanan believed, trusted, was persuaded, certain of the reality of Yeshua the risen King Messiah. At some later point in time Yochanan recalled that the Ketuvim (Writings) [the latter portion of the TaNaKH] had prophesied the Messiah’s resurrection: “For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; You will not allow Your Holy One to see decay.” -Tehillim (Psalm) 16:10 Ref. Jonah (Ketuvim); Matt. 12:40; Acts 2:24-32 (HaBrit HaChadashah) They returned to their own homes not because they believed Yeshua had been taken and couldn’t be found but rather because they truly believed Yeshua had been resurrected and may have presumed that He had already ascended to the Father God and would therefore not be seen by them again until the fullness of the Kingdom had come on earth as it is in the heavens. 11 But Miriyam[H] (rebellion, Mary) was standing outside the tomb, grave (mnemeion[G], ha-kaver[H]) weeping; so as she wept, she stooped down (parakupto[G]) to look (blepo[G]) into the tomb, grave (mnemeion[G], ha-kaver[H]); 12 and she saw clearly (theoreo[G]) two messengers [angels] (malakhim[H]) in brilliant whiteness (leukos[G]) sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Yeshua[H] had been lying. Miriyam did not return to her home as K’fa and Yochanan had done. Behold this desperately hopeful woman who had been forgiven much and clearly had a sense of the transcendent reality that surrounded her. She weeps uncontrollably, sensing something she doesn’t fully understand, torn between grief and hope she stoops down to look into the tomb and sees two divine messengers sitting at each end of the cut out birth within the tomb where Messiah had been laid. What Miriyam was seeing was a symbol of something that would transform earthly worship within time and space until the return of the King Messiah. She was looking at the heavenly reflection of the mercy seat of the Ark of the covenant. A Cheruv (Angel) at each side with wings outstretched to touch one another. At that time in history the Holy of Holies was empty, devoid of the Ark of the Covenant which had been missing for centuries (last historically recorded as present during the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple 2 Chronicles 5, 6, 8; 35:3). How then was Israel to attain mercy through sacrifice? The answer is in Yeshua’s sacrifice and His blood offered on the mercy seat of the heavenly Ark for which the earthly Ark had been a shadow. What Miriyam was seeing was the hope of glory, the mercy offered to all who would receive Yeshua’s saving work. Therefore, Yeshua had made it possible for all to enter the Holy of Holies through His blood. As Kohen HaGadol High Priest of the eternal priesthood (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5, 6, 7) Yeshua had made it possible for Miriyam (among others) to become priests of a transcendent “royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light” (1 K’fa 2:9). Based on his writings it seems that K’fa (Peter) came to understand this also. This does not mean that gentile believers are a continuation of or have replaced Israel (ethnic, religious, chosen) but that God has afforded gentile believers a concession through the blood of Messiah that they might become part of the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:12) as humble members of God’s Kingdom. Gentile believers do well to remember that the New Covenant is given the Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-40) and that they are privileged to be adopted into God’s family but should maintain a humble respect for Israel considering it a privilege to have been afforded access to salvation through Israel and not in place of her. 13 And they said to her, “Dear woman (gune[G], ishah[H]), why are you weeping?” She answered them, “Because they have taken away my Lord (Adoniy[H]), and I do not see (eido[G]) where they placed Him.” 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw, looked intently on (theoreo[G]) Yeshua[H] standing there, and she did not see, perceive (eido[G]) that it was Yeshua[H]. There are both physical and spiritual reasons for Miriyam’s inability to identify Yeshua straight away. We recall that there is a correlation here with the first creation, now sin affected, and the birth of a sinless new creation through Yeshua. The garden where the tomb was located relates to the garden of Eden and the Malakhim (Messengers, Angels) to the Cherubim of that garden tasked with guarding its entrance following the sin of Adam and Eve. We note that it was Eve who first took the fruit and that Miriyam is representative of Eve in this remez (hint). Eve had become blinded by sin and like her Miriyam was still blinded to some degree. Therefore, spiritually speaking she required Yeshua to free her from her blindness by naming her a redeemed daughter of God’s Kingdom through His death and resurrection. On the other hand, physically speaking the resurrected body is devoid of the wear of human life and the effects of human existence within the fallen world and therefore appears starkly different to that of the temporal body. Some suggest that Yeshua’s beard having been torn may have disfigured His face, and that there may have been scaring from the terrible flogging and beating He had endured. Finally, “it was dark”. However, none of this can account for Miriyam being unable to recognise His voice at first (v.15). It seems that Miriyam’s tearful emotional state had temporarily clouded her judgement. 15 Yeshua[H] said to her, “Dear woman (gune[G], ishah[H]), why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?” Thinking that He was the gardener, she said to Him, “Adon[H] (Sir), if you have carried (bastazo[G]) Him away, tell me where you placed Him, and I will lift Him up (airo[G]).” 16 Yeshua[H] said to her, “Miriyam[H]!” She turned and said to Him in a language of the Hebrews, “Rabboniy[A]!” (which means, “my Teacher”) [My Great One]. The gardener allusion correlates to the first Adam. Yeshua is the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45). Yeshua’s simple naming of Miriyam of Magdala brings to mind the words of HaMelekh Sh’lomo (King Solomon): “My beloved speaks and says to me: ‘Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away; 11 for now the winter is past, the rain is over and gone.’” -Shir HaShirim (Song of songs) 2:10-11 NRSV Simply by saying her name Yeshua frees Miriyam from emotional blindness and gives her super-real sight. Note that she “turns” to Him and sees Him in His resurrected glory and exclaims “Rabboniy” My Great One! It is worth noting that although the New Testament infers that Yeshua was considered a Rabbi by some, it does not explicitly say that Yeshua received any form of rabbinical training. What the New Testament does denote is that He was a hard working labourer alongside His father for much of his life and while being a regular attendee at the synagogue and an observant Biblical Jew was not known to have a teaching and healing ministry until His thirties. We note that Yeshua therefore was qualified as the Rabbi not by human authority but by the authority of God. It is this in part that Miriyam is recognising when she exclaims “Rabboniy”. “Rabbon” is the Aramaic equivalent to “Rabban” (Halichot Olam Tract. 1. c. 3. p. 25.), which is the Hebrew word given to religious teachers and leaders of great renown. In particular it was given to the heads of the central academy of the Sanhedrin. Gamli’el I, who is quoted in Acts 5:34-39, is known to Jewish history as Rabban Gamli’el. It is important to note that the word “Rabbon” transliterated into the Greek text, is not known to have been used of human beings but is used often in the Talmud to call upon God as “Rabbono al olam” (Lord of the World) [Talmud Bavliy Taanit, fol. 20. 1. Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 1. Abot R. Nathan, c. 9. Bereshit Rabba, sect. 8. fol. 6. 4]. It is at least possible therefore, that Miriyam chose to say “Rabboniy” rather than “Rabbaniy” or “Rabbiy” because she had concluded by faith that Yeshua is Imanu-El (With us God), the “Lord of the World”. Yeshua reminds us that we are to place no others in the ultimate position of “Rabbi, Father , or Teacher”: “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. 9 And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called teachers, for you have one teacher, the Messiah.” -Matthew 23:8-10 17 Yeshua[H] said to her, “Don’t cling to (haptomai[G]) Me, not yet (Oupo[G]), for I am ascending to the Father (Ho Pater[G], Ha Av[H]); but go to My brothers (achiym[H]) and say to them, ‘I am ascending (anabaino[G]) to My Father (Aviy[H]) and your Father (Aviychem[H]), to My God (Eliy[H]) and your God (Eloheiychem[H]).’” 18 Miriyam[H] (rebellion, Mary) of Magdala[A] (a tower) came and announced to the disciples (ha talmidim[H]), “I have seen with my eyes (horao[G]) the Lord (HaAdon[H]),” and that He had said these things to her. The King James translation “Don’t touch Me” is inaccurate. The Greek “haptomai” means more than simply touching, it means to fasten oneself to another. Therefore, the better translation is “Don’t cling to (haptomai[G]) Me, not yet (Oupo[G])”. Yeshua is not telling Miriyam to take her hands off Him, rather He is gently letting her know that now is not the time for a lengthy reunion because He is briefly ascending to the Father prior to appearing to the disciples over the following forty days before ultimately ascending to the right hand of the Father ten days prior to Shavuot (Pentecost) [Acts 1:9-11]. “but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.” Literally this refers to Yeshua’s siblings, and by extension to all His brothers and sisters in God’s family. This is why Miriyam in obedience to His instruction goes and tells the disciples. In the case of His siblings, they had yet to believe in Him. “My Father and your Father, to My God and your God” denotes Yeshua’s resurrection as a corporeal human being who is also God with us. He has made it possible for His brothers to say truly that God is their Father and God, while Yeshua Himself is seen as their brother and continues to submit His humanity to God as Father. Later T’oma will proclaim “My Lord and My God” in response to the reality of Yeshua’s resurrected Person. “I have seen with my eyes (horao[G]) the Lord (HaAdon[H]),” and that He had said these things to her.” Yochanan the gospel writer is careful to note that Miriyam’s testimony is an eye witness account. 19 Now when it was evening on that day, the first (heis[G], echad[H]) day of the week, and when the doors were shut, inaccessible, locked (kleio[G]) where the disciples (ha talmidim[H]) were because of their fear of the Jewish religious leaders (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]), Yeshua[H] came and stood in their midst, and said to them, “Shalom lechem[H] (Peace, wholeness, wellbeing be to youplural).” “On the that day” Yom Rishon (Sunday), nearing the end of the day (“evening” here clearly refers to late afternoon prior to the completion of the Biblical Jewish day at sundown). The disciples were meeting in secret behind locked doors for fear that the religious authorities who had been opposed to Yeshua might come looking for His disciples. It was not because of “their fear of the Jews” as some English translations foolishly render the text. Context denotes that the disciples who were themselves Jews were afraid of the religious Judeans who opposed Yeshua. Therefore to translate Ioudaios here as “Jews” is not only error, it is an affront to the gospel itself, and to the King Messiah (a Jew). “Yeshua[H] came and stood in their midst, and said to them, “Shalom lechem.” The doors were locked, how did Yeshua come and stand in their midst? The only possibility is that He was able to walk through walls or materialize on the other side of doors. And yet, we know from the proceeding verses that His body was physical, corporeal, because T’oma touched Yeshua’s wounds. Therefore, the resurrected body of Messiah is not subject to the material fallen world. He is King of a new and transcendent creation and He has come into the room to reveal Himself to His faithful followers. Note that Yeshua uses the familiar Hebrew greeting “Shalom lechem” Peace, wholeness and wellbeing be unto all of you. Peace Himself wishes them Peace. 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples (ha talmidim[H]) then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Yeshua[H] said to them again, “Shalom lechem[H] (Peace, wholeness, wellbeing be to you)”; just as the Father (Ho Pater[G], Ha Av[H]) has sent (apostello[G], shalach[H]) Me, I also send you [bid you to carry] (pempo[G], sholeiach[H]).” Yeshua has been sent as a shaliach by God to bring salvation to the Jewish people and the nations and now He sends His disciples to be Shaliachim (Sent ones) who “carry” the gospel of truth, the message of salvation through Yeshua. The Hebrew shaliach meaning “sent one” is equivalent to the Greek apostello, from which we get the English apostle. Many today in the Church are adopting this title as one that sets them apart from other believers, making it a title of position over others. This could not be more contrary to the meaning of the word “apostle”. In Messiah Yeshua we are all apostles, shaliachim, sent ones, with One Ruler, Yeshua, the Head of the Body of Believers. 22 And when He had said this, He breathed (emphusao[G]) on them and said to them, “Take hold of (lambano[G]) the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh[H]). 23 If you send away, cancel, place an expiry on, forgive (aphiemi[G]) the sins (missing the mark of God’s Holiness, hamartia[G]) of any, their sins have been sent away, cancelled, have expired, are forgiven (aphiemi[G]) them; if a certain one (tis[G]) continues to hold (krateo[G]) his sin then his sin is retained (krateo[G]).” Yeshua’s breathing on the disciples mirrors the creation of the first human being by the breath of God (Genesis 2:7). It is not the fullness of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which would come some 50 days later but a transcendent symbolic act announcing the inception of the new creation. “then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed (vayipach[H]) into his nostrils the direct breath (neshamah[H]) of living (chayiym[H]); and the man became a living being (lenefesh chayah[H]).” -Bereishit (Genesis) 2:7 Author’s translation All other animals were created and given both ruach (spirit) and nefesh (soul existence) due to the Spirt of God but only human beings were created by the direct breath neshamah of God. This sets humanity apart within creation. Today when liberalism equates animals and human beings it denies the truth of Scripture and insults God Who has made human beings in His image, likeness. It is interesting to note that the second century Targum speaks of the King Messiah in this way: "the Spirit went from between the wings of the cherubim, v’nesvayah and breathed upon Him (Manasseh) by the decree, or order of the word of the Lord.'' - Targum on 2 Chronicles 33:13 NB: Here Manasseh is a figure for the promised Messiah. 24 But T’oma[H] (twin), one of the twelve, who was called Didymus[G] (twofold), was not with them when Yeshua[H] came. 25 So the other disciples (talmidim[H]) were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord (HaAdon[H])!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the nail wholes, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe, be convinced, be persuaded of (pisteuo[G], a’amiyn[H]).” T’oma was no more faithless or disbelieving than any other disciple. He had not witnessed what they had witnessed and therefore, like them, needed to see it with his own eyes. The foolish defaming of his character by far too many Christian scholars is appalling. In fact T’oma is in good company, after all, our rabbis say of Moses: "he did not believe that Israel had sinned, but said, ‘if I do not see, I will not believe’" - Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 142. 2. T’oma’s need to see for himself gave opportunity for an affirmation of the super-physical nature of Yeshua’s resurrected body. 26 And after eight days His disciples (talmidim[H]) were again inside, and T’oma[H] (twin) with them. Yeshua[H] came, the doors having been shut, inaccessible, locked (kleio[G]), and stood in their midst and said, “Shalom lechem[H] (Peace, wholeness, wellbeing be to you).” 27 Then He said to T’oma[H] (twin), “Place your finger here, and see My hands; and take your hand and put it into My side; and do not continue in disbelief, faithlessness, mistrust (apistos[G]), be faithful, trust, believe (pistos[G], ma’amiyn[H]).” By first century Jewish measurement of time and according to Biblical time measurement the first and last days of a period are counted and therefore, “eight days later” means “a week later” in modern English. This is why the Jewish boy is circumcised on the eight day, which is one week from birth in accordance with the first day following the creation week. Once again Yeshua appears in their midst, resurrected, transcendent, meta-physical. Yeshua does not berate T’oma like some of our self-righteous scholars do but instead affords T’oma an opportunity to touch the evidence and encourages T’oma not to continue in disbelief. 28 T’oma[H] (twin) answered and said to Him, “My Lord (Adoniy[H]) and my God (velohay[H])!” 29 Yeshua[H] said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you believe, trust, are persuaded (he’emaneta[H])? Happy (Makarios[G]) are they who did not see (eido[G]), and believe (hama’amiyniym[H]).” T’oma says “Adoniy vElohay!” My Lord and My God! This is either the most heinous of blasphemies or Yeshua is God with us (Imanu-El) as the prophet promises (Isaiah 7:14). In order to determine which of the possibilities is true we must look at the response of Yeshua. Does Yeshua rebuke T’oma for blasphemy? Does Yeshua say, “I am your lord in a sense but I’m not God T’oma, be careful what you say.” NO, no and no! Yeshua says “Because you have seen Me you believe…” Believe what? That Yeshua is Lord and God. Keep in mind what happened to Herod when the crowd later proclaimed concerning him, “This is the voice of God and not of a man!’ Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he didn't give God the glory. He was eaten by worms and died.” (Acts 12:20-23). Therefore, if Yeshua were not God with us would the Angel of the Lord not also have struck Him down? There are many implicit indications that Yeshua is Imanu-El (God with us), here is yet another allusion to Messiah as present manifest deity. Some Messianic Jewish scholars have said we should not be simplistic in calling Yeshua God, and to some degree this is true, He is God with us and is in the Father in Whom all things exist, however, nor should we be so subtle in our identification of Yeshua as God with us that we fail to convey the reality that only a fully God fully man Messiah is capable of fulfilling the promises of the prophets. “Happy are they who did not see, and believe.” What a precious reassurance to all who have believed and all who will believe before He returns. I for one can testify to the happiness of belief in the yet to be seen Messiah Yeshua. 30 So then, many other miraculous signs (semeion[G],otot[H]) Yeshua[H] also worked in the presence of the disciples (talmidim[H]), which are not written in this book (baseipher[H]); Yochanan the writer of this gospel makes it clear that his purpose in writing the gospel was not to detail every sign and wonder performed by Yeshua but rather to detail those aspects of Yeshua’s life and ministry which best revealed His eternal nature and redemptive role. Yochanan was aware that others had written more detailed gospels and that these were accessible to his readers. 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Yeshua[H] is the Messiah (HaMashiach[H]), the Son of God (ho uihos ho Theos[G], HaBen HaElohim[H]) ; and that by believing (pisteuo[G], be’emunat’chem[H]) you may have living (chayiym[H]) in His Name (bish’mo[H]). Ultimately Yochanan wrote his gospel “so that you may believe that Yeshua[H] is the Messiah, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have living in His Name.” Some Greek manuscripts say “so that you may continue believing” while others say “so that you may, at a point in time, come to believe”. This has caused needless debate among scholars. Yochanan the Hebrew was thinking as a Hebrew and intended both meanings simultaneously, so that his gospel would continue to speak to both those who were believing and those who would believe. Once again we are afforded the opportunity to be set free from the false choices posed by Greco-Roman Western thinking Christian scholars. We choose “both and” rather than “this or that”. Seeking to know all is for the idolatrous, holding mystery in tension is for the courageous. Copyright 2020 Yaakov Brown “You say that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into this world, to testify, bear witness to the immutable truth. Everyone who is of the immutable truth hears in My voice.” The beginning of the so called “Passion Narrative” John 18:1-19:42 (Matthew 26:30-27:61; Mark 14:26-15:47; Luke 22:39-23:56)
Introduction: Yeshua’s words to the disciples following the Pesach (Passover) Seder (John 13) and prior to crossing the Kidron valley to Gat Sheminim (Gethsemane), which included an open prayer to the Father concerning protection and reassurances of purpose, now come to a conclusion. What follows takes place across the Kidron valley (east of Jerusalem) in the garden of Gethsemane at the base of the Mount of Olives. It’s interesting to note that the author of Yochanan’s gospel doesn’t include Yeshua’s anguished prayers in the garden or the inability of the disciples to stay awake and keep watch. However the reference to the cup of suffering (v.11) corresponds to the prayers in the garden (Luke 22:42). John’s gospel which has been focused from the beginning on the all existing nature of the Messiah now reveals “God with us” as Lamb to slaughter. The impressive supernatural occurrence that results from Yeshua’s powerful declaration of identity in response to those seeking to arrest Him affirms His authority and illuminates further the convergent theme of Creator as Word having entered His creation. Among other things the gospel writer focuses on the actions of his dear friend Kefa (Peter), a man who is fiercely protective of Yeshua and also suffers great emotional and spiritual turmoil over the denial of Him. The motives of Pilate are illuminated in John’s gospel which implicitly alludes to his involvement in the arrest of Yeshua (v.3, 12), his nonchalant attitude toward Yeshua’s kingship (v.37-38) and his provocation of the Judean leaders (v.39). It’s worth noting that history records Pilate as a man who sought to provoke the Jews in order to justify harsh military response. He was not the innocent bystander that so many Christian commentators make him out to be. 1 Yeshua[H] (Iesous[G], Joshua, YHVH Saves, Jesus) spoke (epo[G]) these words, then He went forth with His disciples (talmidim[H]) over the valley (ravine) of the Kidron[H] (dark, from the root “kadar” to mourn) , where there was a garden (Gat Sheminim[H], press of olives), in which He entered with His disciples (talmidim[H]). 2 Now Y’hudah[H] (Praise, Judas Iscariot) also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Yeshua[H] had often met there with His disciples (talmidim[H]). “These words” refers to the words taught, spoken, prayed over the last several preceding chapters (from chapter 13 to the present chapter) as Yeshua and His talmidim had walked through Jerusalem from the location of the Passover Seder meal, to the other side of the city (the east side). The Kidron was known at least in part as a valley of refuse. The Levites had once cast the unclean things which had been cleaned out of the Temple into the Kidron valley at Hezekiah’s command to cleanse the Temple of idolatrous elements (2 Chronicles 29:16). There is a correlation here. Yeshua’s death and resurrection will ultimately cleanse the Temple to such a degree that God Himself and the Lamb will dwell in place of the Temple (Rev. 21:22). “Kidron” means “darkness and mourning” and may be the physical valley that acts as figure for the “valley of the shadow of death” described in Psalm 23.“Gat Sheminim” means “press of olives (crushing of olives), an olive press”. It is fitting that Yeshua walk through “the valley of the shadow of death” to that place where He would firmly decide to drink the cup of wrath that the Father had given Him to drink. As a result of Yeshua being crushed He would resurrect, return to the Father and pour out the oil of His Spirit upon all who would believe. There is a correlation to be made between the crossing of the Kidron by Yeshua and His disciples and the crossing of the Kidron made by king David and his retinue (2 Samuel 15:23). In the wake of Absalom’s betrayal of David (a prefigure of Y’hudah’s betrayal of Yeshua), David crosses the valley of darkness and mourning (Kidron) and into exile. In some respects this is what Yeshua is doing here: He will go into a temporary exile through death, but like David before Him He will return a conquering King and Ruler. Gethsemane was a favourite meeting place of Yeshua and His talmidim. It was located not far from Bethany (the town of Lazarus, Mary and Martha) and was close to the city of Jerusalem (approx. 2.5 km away) so as to be a convergent point in the many travels of Yeshua and His talmidim. There is another correlation here with respect to the garden. Just as the first Adam received sin into the world in Gan Eden (the garden of Eden [delight]) so too the Last Adam Yeshua (1 Corinthians 15:45) firmly decided to bring about the removal of sin from this world in and through Gat Sheminim (the pressing of olives [oil]). 3 Y’hudah[H] (Praise, Judas Iscariot) then, having received the 600-1000 strong cohort (speira[G], spiral) and servants from the chief priests (archiereus[G], hakohaniym[H]) and the P’rushiym[H] (Separate, distinct, chased ones, Pharisees), came there with torches (phanos[G]) and oil lamps (lampas[G]) and weapons. “Speira” describes a Roman cohort. This means that Pilate was at least tacitly involved in the arrest of Yeshua. The cohort could not have been deployed without his full knowledge and approval. The Jewish Temple guard was smaller in number and thus could not qualify as a “cohort”. Further the cohort is said to be accompanied by the servants of the chief priests (predominantly Sadducees, some of whom would have been Temple guards) and representatives of the Pharisees (the sect controlling religious politics among the wider Jewish community). The Pharisees did not have their own guard, they were there purely as religious leaders. The full number of those who came to arrest Yeshua was approximately 1200. Matthew’s gospel calls those who came to arrest Yeshua “a great multitude” armed with “swords and long spears” (Matt. 26:47). 4 So Yeshua[H], seeing, perceiving (eido[G]) all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” Yeshua had already seen these things completed outside of time and space in His position as Word Essence within the Godhead (John 1:1). 17 For this reason the Father (ho Pater[G], ha Av[H]) loves (oheiv[H]) Me, because I lay down My life, breath, soul existence (et-nafshiy[H]) so that I may take it up again. 18 No one, nothing (oudeis[G]) has taken it away from Me or separated (apo[G]) Me from it, but I lay it down on My own initiative, in My Own power, by My Own choice (exousia[G]). I have authority, power, choice (exousia[G]) to lay it down, and to take it up again. This commandment (entole[G]) I received from My Father (Pater mou[G], Aviy[H]).” -Yochanan (John) 10:17-18 The Messiah was prophesied to lay down His life for the people of Israel (Isaiah 53:1-12; Psalm 16:8-11). Yeshua knew Whom they sought. His question was for their sake. We might understand Yeshua’s question as “You come in the authority of Rome and the Jewish religious politicians, but do you truly realise the authority of the Person Whom you seek?” This is partially revealed to them in the power that emanates from Yeshua in the proceeding verse. 5 They answered Him, “Yeshua[H] the Nasraya[A] (Nazarene, HaNatzriy[H], consecrated, devoted one, from netzer - branch).” He said to them, “I Am, I Exist (ego eimi[G]).” And Y’hudah[H] also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. 6 So when He said to them, “I Am, I Exist (ego eimi[G]),” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Therefore He again asked them, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Yeshua[H] the Nasraya[A] (Nazarene, HaNatzriy[H], consecrated, devoted one).” It is literally true to say that based on the residence of His middle years Yeshua was from the town of Nazareth and was therefore, a Natzriy (Nazarene). It is also true to say that He is the Netzer (Branch) at the root of Natzriy and is come to fully fill prophecy concerning the Mashiach. Although the speakers do not comprehend what they are saying, the response they give to Yeshua’s question, “we seek Yeshua the consecrated, devoted Branch”, is a prophetic statement of affirmation concerning the role that Yeshua fills as prophesied by the prophet Isaiah: “Then a shoot will come forth out of the stem of Y’shai, and a branch (nezter) will bear fruit out of His roots. 2 The Ruach of Adonai will rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and insight, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Adonai” -Y’shayahu (Isaiah) 11:1-2 Zechariah the prophet speaks a similar word concerning the Messiah but uses a different word for branch “tsemach”. “Listen well, Joshua kohen gadol, both you and your companions seated before you, because they are men who are a miraculous sign—behold, I will bring forth My servant the Branch.” -Zakhariya (Zechariah) 3:8 “Then speak to him saying, “Thus says Adonai-Tzva’ot: Behold, a man whose Name is the Branch will branch out from his place and build the Temple of Adonai.” -Zakhariya (Zechariah) 6:12 TLV By using different Hebrew words each prophet describes the strength of the branch at different stages of His ministry. He said to them, “I Am, I Exist (ego eimi[G]).” (Ehyeh asher Ehyeh) [I have been Who I AM, I will be Who I AM, I AM Who I AM] By this statement Yeshua identifies as YHVH present within humanity and demonstrates power and authority over all things (Exodus 3:14; John 6:35; 8:58). As Yeshua speaks these words power goes out from Him and causes those who have come to take Him to stagger backward and fall to the ground. In Hebrew tradition the phrase “fall to the ground”, or “Strike to the ground” can refer to striking a person dead immediately, and is ascribed to God, who performs such acts via His angels, in particular Gabriel (Mighty One of God): "let the master of thoughts come, (the blessed God,) and take vengeance on you; immediately Gabriel came, והבטן בקרקע, "and struck them to the ground"; and they died immediately.'' -Rav Simeon Ben Shetakh [F. Bavliy. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2.] "if you transgress your father's command, immediately comes Gabriel, and "strikes to the ground".'' -Shemot Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 91. 2. Therefore, among the religious Jews represented there would have been great fear at the blowing down of those who approached Yeshua. This fear would have been equally present among the superstitious Roman soldiers who witnessed the event. Those who had come to arrest Him were made acutely aware that they would not be successful in their endeavour unless Yeshua allowed them to bind him. All power was in Yeshua’s hands. 8 Yeshua[H] answered, “I told you that I Am, I Exist (ego eimi[G]); so if you seek Me, let these go their way,” 9 to make full (pleroo[G]) the word (ho logos[G], hadavar[H]) which He spoke, “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” Yeshua declares “I AM” a second time but withholds the power which He had levelled at His pursuers in the first stating of His Divine nature. This is an act of mercy toward His jailors and a clear expression of His decision to lay down His life: Re: John 10:17. Note that Yeshua lays down His life of His own fruition and power. Neither the thief, nor the wolf, nor any other power is able to take the life of the Messiah except that He allows it. The giving of His life is entirely His decision. “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” A quoting of John 6:39 which makes an exception of Y’hudah [Judas Iscariot] (who himself chose not to be chosen [given]). 10 Shimon K’fa[H] (Simon [heard] Peter [rock]) then, having a short sword (machaira[G]), drew it and struck the high priest’s (archiereus[G], hakohen hagadol[H]) servant (doulos[G]), and cut off his right ear; and the servant’s (doulos[G]) name was Malchus[H]([kingly] alt. Malchut[H] [kingdom]). The so called synoptic gospel accounts of this event: Matthew 26:51-52; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50. John’s gospel is the only account to name both the perpetrator Peter and the victim Malchus. There are at least two reasons for this. First, John was known to the high priest [v.15-16] and his court and thus was probably personally acquainted with Malchus. Second, John loved and admired Peter’s tenacity and courage in seeking to physically defend Yeshua. John did not act in the same way, perhaps out of fear. 11 So Yeshua[H] said to K’fa[H] (Peter, rock) “Put the short sword (machaira[G]) into the sheath; should I not drink the cup (kos[H]) which the Father (ho Pater[G], Aviy[H]) has given Me?” “should I not drink the cup which the Father has given Me?” Fits with the account of Luke 22:42. The cup Yeshua must drink is the cup of God’s wrath against sin. This is the cup we sinners should drink from and yet He (the sinless One) chose to drink it on behalf of all who would receive His atoning work through death on a Roman cross and through His resurrection. “God made him who had no sin to be a sin offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” -2 Corinthians 5:21 “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” -Romans 5:9 NIV 12 So the 600-1000 strong cohort (speira[G], spiral) and the commander (chiliarchos[G]) and the servants of the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]), arrested Yeshua[H] and bound Him, The Greek “chiliarchos” translated “commander” refers to the Roman commander of a cohort of 1000 men. Thus, the Roman commander, the Jewish Temple guards and the religious leaders were jointly responsible for binding Yeshua. In short all present represented the major political and religious interests of both Jerusalem and the Roman Empire and therefore, were all equally culpable. It should be reiterated therefore, that Pilate was complicit in the arrest of Yeshua making His pretence at the subsequent trial all the more abhorrent. We further note that at approximately 33 years of age Yeshua had shown that He had power to prevent His arrest and yet allowed them to bind Him. This correlates to Isaac, who at the same age allowed Abraham to bind him for sacrifice (Ha Akeidah [The Binding] Bereishit [Genesis] 22). 13 and led Him to Chananyah[H] (Gracious Yah [God], alt. Annas[G], humble) first; for he was father-in-law of Kayafa[A] (Caiaphas, attractive: Yoseph Ben Caiaphas), who was high priest that year. John’s gospel alone tells of this preliminary hearing held before Annas (Chananyah) the father in law of the High Priest Caiaphas (Kayafa). Once again this makes sense given John’s relationship to the priestly class (v.15-16). “High priest that year” is an indication that something other than Torah commanded priesthood was being practiced. The high priest of the Torah must be a descendant of Aaron and would be high priest until his death. In the early first century C.E. the priesthood had been defiled by Roman influence and the greed of certain Jewish religious power brokers, thus there was an albeit tenuous political relationship between the Jewish authorities of the time and the Roman Empire via her governor in Judea. Annas had become high priest in 6 C.E. and reigned in that position until 15 C.E. In addition to Caiaphas many members of Annas’ family became high priest after him, including five of his sons. This was an apostate priesthood that existed in conjunction with Roman rule and was a desecration of the rightful priesthood of Israel. This in part is why Yeshua had set up His own Sanhedrin (Luke 10:1). Yeshua had confirmed the line of His priesthood (of all believers under Messiah) in His talmidim (disciples) as He ritually washed there feet during the Seder meal (John 13:4-17 see my article and note). Caiaphas (Kayafa) [A.K.A Yoseph Ben Caiaphas] was appointed (contrary to Torah law) by Roman governor Valerius Gratus and served under him from 18 C.E. to 26 C.E. He then served under Pontius Pilate from 26 C.E. to approximately 37 C.E. In order to maintain his position political ties and compromise would have been necessary. He was not a legitimate (according to Torah law) high priest. He was chairman of the Sanhedrin which was made up predominantly of Sadducees. Ultimately Caiaphas held the position of high priest at the behest of Rome, making Pilate’s complicity in the arrest of Yeshua undeniable. 14 Now Kayafa[A] (Caiaphas, attractive: Yoseph Ben Caiaphas) was the one who had advised the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of all the people (kol-ha’am[H]) [11:49-52]. 15 Shimon K’fa[H] (Simon [heard] Peter [rock]) was following Yeshua[H], and so was another disciple [the author John]. Now that disciple was known (gnostos[G]) to the high priest (haKohen hagadol[H]), and entered with Yeshua[H] into the courtyard of the high priest (haKohen hagadol[H]), God honoured the prophetic nature of the words spoken by Caiaphas (11:49-52) not because Caiaphas was a legitimate high priest but because the role of high priest was one of mediation and revelation to the people of Israel. In fact the legitimate line of Aaron seems to lead us to Yochanan the Immerser as a more likely candidate for a legitimate high priest. Regardless, Yeshua will be raised the Highest Priest of an everlasting priesthood that both precedes and supersedes the priesthood of Aaron. Verse 14 gives clear evidence in support of translating “Ioudaios” as “Jewish religious leaders or Judeans [in the sense of a sectarian noun]”. The text calls the nation of Israel (all Jews in the land) “the people” and explains that Kayafa (Caiaphas) had advised the Ioudaios (Jewish leaders) on behalf of all Jews Ioudaios (the people). Therefore, the word Ioudaios must be translated according to context and not in an arbitrary manner. The most obvious candidate for the unnamed disciple is the author Yochanan (John). Based on the inference of the text we can deduce that John was not only in relationship with some members of the Sanhedrin but was also known to the high priest personally. The fact that John was allowed entry based on his relationship to the priesthood and that he was afforded the right to gain entry for Peter (v.16) shows that there were those among the Sanhedrin and Pharisaic sect that remained sympathetic to Yeshua. As is so often the case this pretrial of Yeshua was subject to the loudest voices rather than the correct mode of Torah justice. It is very likely that many in the room disagreed with how Yeshua was treated. 16 but K’fa[H] (Peter) was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple [the author John], who was known (gnostos[G]) to the high priest (hakohen hagadol[H]), went out and spoke to the doorkeeper (thuroros[G]), and brought K’fa[H] (Peter) in. 17 Then the young girl (paidiske[G]) who kept the door (thuroros[G]) said to K’fa[H] (Peter), “You are not also one of this man’s disciples (talmidim[H]), are you?” He said, “I am not.” Many are quick to pass judgement on Peter for his denial, and of course it was to his shame, however, who among us would have confessed our allegiance to a man accused of capital crime while we stood among his many accusers and at the risk of losing our lives? Peter had just risked his life for Yeshua by cutting of the servant Malchus’s ear in the midst of close to 1000 Roman soldiers and 200 Temple servant guards and Pharisees, was this the act of a coward? Was John questioned? Did John make an effort to physically protect Yeshua? And yet we laud John and decry Peter. Nonsense! Both were righteous, both acted according to their roles. It is a mistake to presume that John’s gospel seeks to show Peter as a coward. To the contrary, John depicts his dear friend Peter in all the fullness of his humanity and with admiration. 18 Now the servants and the attendants were standing, having made a fire of coals, for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and K’fa[H] (Peter) was also with them, standing and warming himself. 19 The high priest (hakohen hagadol[H]) then questioned Yeshua[H] about His disciples (talmidim[H]), and about His teaching, doctrine, instruction (didache[G]). The pretrial that follows is illegal according to both Roman and Torah law. There were no legitimate witnesses as to a crime, the accused was not treated with respect or given an advocate, two or three corroborating witnesses were not presented and so on. That a man of such religious authority and political influence as Annas would conduct such a trial shows a lack of integrity and is an abhorrent misuse of power, compounded by the fact that Annas had recently been in the role of high priest and would surely influence Caiaphas in regard to Yeshua’s conviction at the hands of Pilate. 20 Yeshua[H] answered him, “I have spoken openly, unreservedly, without ambiguity (parrhesia[H]) to the world (ho kosmos[G], ha olam[H]); I always taught in the gathering places, the synagogue (sunagoge[G]) and in the house of the temple (ho hieron[G], beiyt hamikdash[H]), where all the Jews (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. 21 Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said.” Due to context we see that “Ioudaios” is used here to refer to all Jews (Israelis), this being an exception to its more regular usage as a reference to the Jewish religious leaders and or the Judean religious sect of first century Judaism. Yeshua shines a bright light on the illegitimacy of the pretrial and invokes Torah instruction with His answer. “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness.” -Shemot (Exodus) 23:1 A judge “must not commit unrighteousness!” -Vayikra (Lev.) 19:15 A judge “must not show favour to or be partial to a litigant!” -Vayikra (Lev.) 19:15 A judge “must not take vengeance or bear a grudge!” -Vayikra (Lev.) 19:18 22 When He had said this, one of the attendants standing nearby struck Yeshua[H], saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” 23 Yeshua[H] answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” Yeshua had not disrespected the authority (albeit illegitimate) of Annas, rather He had simply demanded that Torah law be followed and appropriate witnesses be presented in order to validate any accusations being levelled against Him. Note that the One Whose word had sent men reeling and falling to the ground less than 40 minutes prior nonetheless allows himself to be struck. “Like a lamb to the slaughter…” For the powerless man humility comes easy, but true humility is proved in the gentle response of a strong man. The striking of one who speaks the truth warrants a weighty fine according to Mishnaic law: The servant of the high priest who struck Yeshua should have been corrected by the Council, and made to pay the two hundred zuzim, fine required by Mishnaic law for such an offence, this fine could be substantially higher if the dignity of the person abused was deemed laudable. Perhaps in this case as much as 400 zuzim? (Mishnah Bava Kama, c. 8. sect. 6.) It is interesting to note that the Mishnaic fine due Peter for cutting a man’s ear was four hundred zuzim. (Mishnah. Bava Kama, c. 8, sect. 6.) Given Yeshua’s status the unpaid fine due His offender might be considered to cancel out Peter’s debt. 24 So Chananyah[H] (Gracious Yah [God], alt. Annas[G], humble) sent Him bound to Kayafa[A] (Caiaphas, attractive) the high priest (hakohen hagadol[H]). 25 Now Shimon K’fa[H] (Simon [heard] Peter [rock]) was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also of His disciples (talmidim[H]), are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” Interestingly Yochanan (John the gospel writer) doesn’t record the details of the trial before Caiaphas nor the subsequent meeting of the Sanhedrin the following morning. It seems that Yochanan is more interested in conveying the meta-narrative of Yeshua’s Divinity and redemptive purpose than he is in giving a blow by blow account. He is clearly aware that there are others who have recorded the detail of these events (Matthew 26:59-68, 27:1-2; Mark 14:55-65, 15:1; Luke 22:66-23:1) and is content with conveying the gospel according to the inspiration that the Holy Spirit has afforded him. It seems that Annas was at least partially convicted by Yeshua’s words. The act of sending Yeshua to Caiaphas places the responsibility of His conviction in the hands of another. However, like Pilate, Annas is complicit and will ultimately be held to account by God. Sadly the Talmud Bavliy outright lies concerning the events of Yeshua’s trial claiming that after Yeshua was found guilty, a herald went before him forty days declaring his crime, and signifying, that if anyone knew anything worthy in him, to come and declare it (Talmud Bavliy Sanhedrin, fol. 43. 1.). Ironic that this is written in the tractate “Sanhedrin”. This is an unqualified revisionist lie concerning the history of events surrounding Yeshua’s trial. Our rabbis should be ashamed for this false witness against our King Messiah! The polemic nature of their lie is palpable. Peter’s second denial comes as the trial of Yeshua begins to heat up and the stakes become clearer. This is a life and death moment in time for all associated with Yeshua. 26 One of the servants of the high priest (HaKohen Hagadol[H]), being a relative of the one whose ear K’fa[H] (Peter) cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” 27 K’fa[H] (Peter) then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed. The final denial by Peter comes in the face of direct confrontation by a witness to his act of defence in the garden of Gethsemane. One has great compassion for Peter at this point given the compounding of the accusations against him and the very real threat of death by association. The rooster crows according to Yeshua’s prophetic words (13:38). Note that Yochanan does not dwell on Peter’s denial. He simply records it as fulfilling the prophetic word of Yeshua. Peter is dear to Yochanan. 28 Then they led Yeshua[H] from Kayafa[A] (Caiaphas, attractive) into the Praetorium [praitōrion[G]] (Governor’s court room), and it was early, daybreak (proia[G]); and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, become ritually unclean (miaino[G]), but might eat the Pascha[G] (Paskha[A] Passover sacrifice). The ritual uncleanness or defilement mentioned here is not to do with Torah observance but with extrabiblical law that considered an observant Jew to be unclean after entering the home of a gentile. This is why Peter was given the vision of the heavenly cloth filled with all kinds of animals (Acts 10:28). "the dwelling houses of Gentiles", or idolaters, "are unclean" - Mishnah Oholot, c. 18. sect. 7. "if the collectors for the government (Romans) enter into a house to dwell in, all in the house are defiled.'' - Maimonides. Mishcab & Mosheb, c. 12. sect. 12. According to both the Mishnah and Yarhci it was unlawful to to rent out a house in Judea to a pagan or to assist in building a Basilica for them. The Basilica is explained to be a palace, in which judges sit to judge men. (Mishnah. Avoda Zara, c. 1. sect. 8; Yarchi & Bartenora in ib. sect. 7.) The “Paskha” or festival offering mentioned here is not the Passover meal of the previous evening but the Chagigah (festival sacrifice) made on the day of the Passover during the first century Temple period. Therefore, those who claim that the Seder meal in John’s gospel is not a Seder meal are in error based on a lack of understanding of first century Temple practice (Mishnah Pesachim 6:4 re. the eating of the Chagigah until the intervening night [15 Nisan]). As further evidence of my assertion: King Josiah is said to offer for the Passovers (plural) three thousand bullocks, and the priests three hundred oxen, and the Levites five hundred oxen (2 Chronicles 35:7). Yarchi interprets these as the peace offerings of the Chagigah (Festival offering), which in second book of Chronicles are called Passovers (plural). 1 Esdras 1:7-9 mentions three thousand calves, besides lambs, that Josiah gave for the Passover; and three hundred by some other persons, and seven hundred by others: Deuteronomy 16:2, is explained of the "Chagigah", in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Hieros. Pesacb. fol. 33. 1. Talmud Bavliy Pesachim, fol. 70. 2.) Therefore, besides the Passover lamb, other sacrifices were slain, "in the name of the Passover” (Mishnah Pesachim, c. 6. sect. 5.) The present text then is referring to the aforementioned Passover sacrifices which the observant first century Jewish men in question were to eat that day, and therefore were being careful not to defile themselves according to the Mishnah. It should also be noted, that all the seven days of the festival were called the Passover; and those who eat the matzot (unleavened bread), say: "Let everyone that is hungry, let him come and eat all that he needs, "and keep the Passover".'' - Haggadah Shel Pesach. p. 4. Ed. Rittangel. 29 Therefore Pilate (Pilatos[G], meaning: armed with a spear) went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” Knowing what we do about Pilate’s actions during his role as governor of Judea and the fact that a Roman cohort was sent to arrest Yeshua (this could not have happened without Pilate’s approval), it is extremely difficult to take Pilate’s words as a genuine enquiry. He clearly already knew what some of the religious leaders who opposed Yeshua wanted. Therefore, Pilate’s question is a deception. In short, Pilate is a fraud and is complicit in the plan to put Yeshua to death. Spotlight on Pilate Pilate had sought to offend and provoke the Jews from the outset. His modus operandi was to provoke and then decimate those whom he saw as the Jewish agitators in Roman occupied Israel. Josephus tells us that Pilate provoked both Jews and Samaritans to riot “in order to abolish Jewish laws,”. The gospel records Pilate mixing the blood of Galilean Jews with their sacrifices (Luke 13:1). This desecration alone was abhorrent but it was not the only action of its kind perpetrated by Pilate. (see appendix A. for more details of Pilate’s actions) 30 They answered and said to him, “If this Man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you.” The religious leaders and their adherents had no evidence of evil doing. This was a false and unsupportable claim. 31 So Pilate (Pilatos[G]) said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your Torah[H], law (nomos[G]).” The Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,” One must hold in a loud and sardonic guffaw (gut wrenching laugh) at the reading of this. Pilate, whose modus operandi was to seek to “abolish Jewish laws” (Josephus), says “Judge Him according to your Torah”. Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Pilate is a two faced hypocrite, a liar, and a hater of both the idea of a Jewish Messiah and the Jewish people as a whole. “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,” According to first century Roman law the Jewish leaders were not authorised to carry out the death penalty except in very rare cases. Therefore, because their false accusation concerned a crime for which they believed the Torah required capital punishment, they were seeking Pilate’s judgement and sentencing of Yeshua. Bottom line, without Pilate’s approval, tacit or otherwise, Yeshua could not be crucified. The washing of his hands would not be sufficient to clean the guilt of Pilate’s unrepentant soul. 32 to make full the word of Yeshua[H] which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die [John 3:14-15; 12:32]. 33 Therefore Pilate (Pilatos[G]) entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Yeshua[H] and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews (HaMelekh HaYehudim[H])?” Yeshua’s word prophesying the type of death He would die (John 3:13-15; 12:32) was significant in that He would not die by stoning, the Torah prescribed method of death for the crime of blasphemy (Vayikra [Lev.] 24:16). This was to fulfil the figure of the snake on the pole held up by Moses to offer a means of redemption to those Israelites suffering snake bites during a plague against their disobedience as they wandered the desert toward the land of Israel (Bamidbar [Num.] 21:8-9; John 3:14-15). We note that the previous events had taken place outside the Praetorium and that Pilate now brought Yeshua inside in order to talk to him away from the listening ears of the Jewish religious authorities. Pilate’s question is one that seeks to find grounds for an accusation of insurrection. Anyone claiming to be a king was in direct opposition to the Roman Emperor and was therefore subject to the death penalty. Pilate had already killed Galilean Jews for similar reason (Luke 13:1). It seems clear that Pilate saw killing Yeshua as a win, win. First, he would be putting down a possible Messianic insurrection and second he would gain a large political favour from the subservient Jewish religious authorities, making his job as governor much easier (at least for a time). Of course history tells us that he did not manage to restrain himself after Yeshua’s death, and was reported to the Emperor by the Samaritans whom he had sought to decimate on Mount Gerizim in 36 C.E. 34 Yeshua[H] answered, “Are you saying this from your own soul (men nafshakh[A], alt. on your own initiative), or did others tell you about Me?” 35 Pilate (Pilatos[G]) answered, “I am not a Jew (Ioudaios[G]), am I? Your own people (ethnos[G]) and the chief priests (archiereus[G], HaKohaniym[H]) delivered You to me; what have You done?” Yeshua knows Pilate’s motives and the influence the religious leaders have had upon him. By addressing Pilate’s own soul Yeshua’s question affords Pilate an opportunity to repent but Pilate does not take the opportunity to do so. Pilate’s reaction to Yeshua’s words is disingenuous, he lies to both Yeshua and himself. Pilate had okayed the sending of the cohort to assist the Jewish authorities in arresting Yeshua, therefore, he is lying in his pretence regarding the delivery of Yeshua by the chief priests. Notice that Pilate says “your people”. Pilate’s character as exhibited in the history of his actions as governor of Judea tells us that he detested the Jews, Yeshua being one of them. 36 Yeshua[H] answered, “My kingdom is not of this world (ho kosmos[G], haolam[H]). If My kingdom (malchutiy[H]) were of this world (ho kosmos[G], haolam[H]), then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]); but as it is, My kingdom (malchutiy[H]) is not from this place, not of this side (enteuthen[G]).” Yeshua is King of all and will reign over the renewed heavens and earth, a world devoid of sin. He is not saying that He is not King over this present world, rather He is saying that His Kingdom is not of (born of, seeded by) this sin affected world. His Kingdom is of the heavens, of God Himself. Yeshua will return to reign forever. Pilate was unable to comprehend Yeshua’s response because he was deeply rooted in a kingdom of this world (the temporary Roman kingdom). Note the Hebrew “Malchutiy” My Kingdom. It sounds familiar because it shares its root with the name of the servant of the high priest “Malchus” kingdom. The temporal and fallen kingdom of Malchus (representing the apostate priesthood. A kingdom of idolatry) was deaf to the Word of Yeshua and His Kingdom everlasting. One Jewish commentator agrees that the Messiah is not of this world: "the Messiah is separated from the world, because he is absolutely intellectual; but the world is corporeal; how then should the Messiah be in this world, when the world is corporeal, and ענין המשיח הוא אלהי לא גשמי, "the business of the Messiah is divine, and not corporeal?" - Rav Y’hudah Bezaleel Nizeach Israel, fol. 48. 37 Therefore Pilate (Pilatos[G]) said to Him, “So You are a king?” Yeshua[H] answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into this world (ho kosmos[G], haolam[H]), to testify, bear witness (martureo[G]) to the immutable truth (aletheia[G], haEmet[H]). Everyone who is of the immutable truth (aletheia[G], haEmet[H]) hears in My voice (phone[G], bekoliy[H]).” “So you are a king” Pilate is hoping to confirm a legitimate reason to put Yeshua to death. Yeshua holds Pilate accountable for his assertion “You say I am a King.” Then Yeshua proves Pilate with the words “Everyone who is of the immutable truth hears in My voice.” And Pilate confirms his true nature by saying, “What is Truth?” 38 Pilate (Pilatos[G]) said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) and said to them, “I find no reason to punish Him. This performance places Pilate in the ultimate position of power. He has assured himself that he has a legitimate reason to kill Yeshua based on Roman law concerning insurrection and at the same time knows he can achieve this by passing the buck onto the Jewish religious authorities thus killing two birds with one stone. Therefore, Pilate is lying when he says “I find no reason to punish Him”. Pilate had sought the reason by asking that specific question concerning Yeshua’s Kingship. The Talmud asks the same question Pilate has asked but gives an authoritative answer: "What is truth?" and the answer is “the living God, and the King of the World!” - Talmud Hieros Sanhedrin, fol. 18. 1. Therefore, the better question is “Who is Truth”. God defines Truth and truth reflects the character of God. 39 But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Pesach[H] (Passover); do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews (HaMelekh HaYehudim[H])?” This next question of Pilate which is posed to some of the Jewish religious leaders is insidious, duplicitous, he knows that the Jewish religious authorities are already enraged at the idea that Yeshua might be the King of the Jews. Added to this is the specific inference “King of the Jewish religious leaders, the Judean sect Ioudaios”. Pilate is intentionally rubbing their noses in it and provoking the result he wants. He knows that by using this title he will bait the Jewish religious authorities into choosing someone other than Yeshua to set free according to the governor’s Passover concession. Bear in mind that there were not more than a thousand Jews present alongside the Roman cohort and Praetorium staff. By far the majority of Jews in Israel at the time were opposed to the political manipulation of the religious leaders and their plan to put Yeshua to death. The majority of Jews at the time (as testified to by the gospel narratives) if they were not certain that Yeshua was the promised Messiah, they were at least convinced He was Elijah, or the prophet Moses spoke of, or one of the other prophets, risen and active in the land. They believed this based on the miraculous signs He worked and the righteous teaching He proclaimed concerning the reconciliation of the Kingdom. 40 So they cried out again, saying, “Not this Man, but Bar-abbas[A] (Covenant son of the father/daddy).” Now Bar-abbas[A] was a robber (lestes[G]). What a heart wrenching irony that the man set free is named Covenant Son of the Father? As well as dying as a substitution for all who would receive Him, Yeshua literally dies in place of a Jewish robber named Covenant Son of the Father. Copyright 2020 Yaakov Brown Appendix A. Philo of Alexandria, The embassy to Caligula 299-305 Pilate was an official who had been appointed prefect of Judaea. With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honouring Tiberius, he set up gilded shields in Herod's palace in the Holy City. They bore no figure and nothing else that was forbidden, but only the briefest possible inscription, which stated two things - the name of the dedicator and that of the person in whose honour the dedication was made. But when the Jews at large learnt of this action, which was indeed already widely known, they chose as their spokesmen the king's [Herod the Great] four sons, who enjoyed prestige and rank equal to that of kings, his other descendants, and their own officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation in the shape of the shields, and not to violate their native customs, which had hitherto been invariably preserved inviolate by kings and emperors alike. When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition, obstinately refused, they shouted: "Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause a war! Do not break the peace! Disrespect done to our ancient laws brings no honour to the emperor. Do not make Tiberius an excuse for insulting our nation. He does not want any of our traditions done away with. If you say that he does, show us some decree or letter or something of the sort, so that we may cease troubling you and appeal to our master by means of an embassy." This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behaviour, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects, but at the same time he was well aware of Tiberius' firmness on these matters. When the Jewish officials saw this, and realized that Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it, they wrote a letter to Tiberius, pleading their case as forcibly as they could. What words, what threats Tiberius uttered against Pilate when he read it! It would be superfluous to describe his anger, although he was not easily moved to anger, since his reaction speaks for itself. For immediately, without even waiting until the next day, he wrote to Pilate, reproaching and rebuking him a thousand times for his new-fangled audacity and telling him to remove the shields at once and have them taken from the capital to the coastal city of Caesarea [...], to be dedicated in the temple of Augustus. This was duly done. In this way both the honour of the emperor and the traditional policy regarding Jerusalem were alike preserved. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 2.169-174 Pilate, being sent by Tiberius as prefect to Judaea, introduced into Jerusalem by night and under cover the effigies of Caesar which are called standards. This proceeding, when day broke, aroused immense excitement among the Jews; those on the spot were in consternation, considering their laws to have been trampled under foot, as those laws permit no image to be erected in the city; while the indignation of the townspeople stirred the countryfolk, who flocked together in crowds. Hastening after Pilate to Caesarea, the Jews implored him to remove the standards from Jerusalem and to uphold the laws of their ancestors. When Pilate refused, they fell prostrate around his palace and for five whole days and nights remained motionless in that position. On the ensuing day Pilate took his seat on his tribunal in the great stadium and summoning the multitude, with the apparent intention of answering them, gave the arranged signal to his armed soldiers to surround the Jews. Finding themselves in a ring of troops, three deep, the Jews were struck dumb at this unexpected sight. Pilate, after threatening to cut them down, if they refused to admit Caesar's images, signalled to the soldiers to draw their swords. Thereupon the Jews, as by concerted action, flung themselves in a body on the ground, extended their necks, and exclaimed that they were ready rather to die than to transgress the law. Overcome with astonishment at such intense religious zeal, Pilate gave orders for the immediate removal of the standards from Jerusalem. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.55-59 Now Pilate, the prefect of Judaea, when he brought his army from Caesarea and removed it to winter quarters in Jerusalem, took a bold step in subversion of the Jewish practices, by introducing into the city the busts of the emperor that were attached to the military standards, for our law forbids the making of images. It was for this reason that the previous prefects, when they entered the city, used standards that had no such ornaments. Pilate was the first to bring the images into Jerusalem and set them up, doing it without the knowledge of the people, for he entered at night. But when the people discovered it, they went in a throng to Caesarea and for many days entreated him to take away the images. He refused to yield, since to do so would be an outrage to the emperor; however, since they did not cease entreating him, on the sixth day he secretly armed and placed his troops in position, while he himself came to the speaker's stand. This had been constructed in the stadium, which provided concealment for the army that lay in wait. When the Jews again engaged in supplication, at a pre-arranged signal he surrounded them with his soldiers and threatened to punish them at once with death if they did not put an end to their tumult and return to their own places. But they, casting themselves prostrate and baring their throats, declared that they had gladly welcomed death rather than make bold to transgress the wise provisions of the laws. Pilate, astonished at the strength of their devotion to the laws, straightway removed the images from Jerusalem and brought them back to Caesarea. Josephus on Pontius Pilate and the Aqueduct Riots Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 2.175-177 "On a later occasion he provoked a fresh uproar by expending upon the construction of an aqueduct the sacred treasure known as Corbonas; the water was brought from a distance of seventy kilometres. Indignant at this proceeding, the populace formed a ring round the tribunal of Pilate, then on a visit to Jerusalem, and besieged him with angry clamour. He, foreseeing the tumult, had interspersed among the crowd a troop of his soldiers, armed but disguised in civilian dress, with orders not to use their swords, but to beat any rioters with cudgels. He now from his tribunal gave the agreed signal. Large numbers of the Jews perished, some from the blows which they received, others trodden to death by their companions in the ensuing flight. Cowed by the fate of the victims, the multitude was reduced to silence." Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.60-62 "He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five kilometres. The Jews did not acquiesce in the operations that this involved; and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him, bidding him relinquish his promotion of such designs. Some too even hurled insults and abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in. He thereupon ordered a large number of soldiers to be dressed in Jewish garments, under which they carried clubs, and he sent them off this way and that, thus surrounding the Jews, whom he ordered to withdraw. When the Jews were in full torrent of abuse he gave his soldiers the prearranged signal. They, however, inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had ordered, punishing alike both those who were rioting and those who were not. But the Jews showed no faint-heartedness; and so, caught unarmed, as they were, by men delivering a prepared attack, many of them actually were slain on the spot, while some withdrew disabled by blows. Thus ended the uprising." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate © 2020 Yaakov Brown Showing favour to one person does not detract from one’s love for another. Only when we allow the sin affected world to influence our thoughts are we driven to become jealous of the favour bestowed on others. As true followers of Yeshua we should rejoice when we see brothers and sisters honoured, regardless of whether honour is bestowed on us. Introduction:
It’s not uncommon for English translations of the Biblical text to place headers at the beginning of sections of the Bible that have what the translators or compilers consider to be a consistent or common theme. The title used by the NASB to introduce verses 21 through 38 of chapter 13 of John’s Gospel is “JESUS PREDICTS HIS DEATH”. One can see why this title might have been chosen, and from our position within time and space we can understand the chronological value of it, however, it misrepresents both Yeshua and Hebrew prophecy. Hebrew prophecy is that which is spoken into time and space from outside of time and space where it is already perfected. Therefore, the Hebrew prophet remembers the future. Yeshua, God with us, does not predict His death, rather He memorializes it. He has already seen it completed outside of time and space. Nor do the disciples benefit from this so called “prediction” at the time, because they do not understand what He is referring to. With these things in mind, let’s allow God’s Spirit to open our hearts and minds afresh and impart a fuller understanding of the nature and purpose of what follows. As we examine the following verses keep in mind the connection between the washing of the disciples’ feet and the priesthood, and the admonition to walk in the all existing Light, as well as the reference to betrayal by a close friend. “It’s certain, it’s certain, I say to you, the one who receives whomever I send receives Me; and the one who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” -John 13:20 21 When Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) had said this, He became troubled, agitated (tarasso[G]) in the (ho[G]) Spirit (pneuma[G], b’ruacho[H]), and testified and said, “Amen[H] [G]Amen[H] [G] (B’emet[H], B’emet[H]), In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I (Aniy[H]) say to you, indeed, that one who comes out from (ex[G]) you will betray Me, give Me into the hands of another (paradidomi[G]).” 22 The disciples (talmidim[H]) began to discern, look (blepo[G]) between one another, at a loss, embarrassed, in doubt (aporeo[G]) to know which one He was speaking of. We note that the Greek text says “He became troubled in the Spirit” rather than in “His spirit” as many English translations render it (the Hebrew text also mistranslates it as b’ruacho in His spirit). The reality is that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and “his spirit” is effectively synonymous with “the Spirit”. Therefore, it’s important to note that the humanity of Yeshua is convergent with the Spirit of God and that the troubling of the Spirit is shared by the Father and the Son. This is why the author chose to say ho Pneuma “the Spirit”. The double “Amein” is once again establishing the certain outworking of God’s redemptive purpose even as it applies to allowing Satan to direct the betrayer Yehudah (Judas). We note that the betrayer “comes out from” meaning that he has determined to be separated from the disciples and their devotion to Yeshua. As one would expect the disciples are horrified at the thought that one of their own number might betray Yeshua. Thus, they were looking around the room trying to discern or perceive which of them might do such a thing. What is clear is that in spite of the questioning of Yochanan (the disciple whom Yeshua loved) and the dipping of the matzah which follows, none of the disciples seem to have any idea who is betraying Yeshua. In part this is because the meal is formal, and probably a Seder meal of some kind and therefore, has numerous dipping rituals that are shared among everybody making it difficult to determine which of the disciples Yeshua is referring to. 23 There was reclining on Yeshua’s[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) breast one of His disciples (talmidim[H]), whom Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) loved. 24 So Shimon Kefa[H] (Simon: hears; Peter: Rock) gestured to him (the disciple), and said to him, “Find out from Him and tell us who He’s speaking of.” “Reclining” Is an indication that this was a Pesach Seder meal. One of the four questions of the Pesach Seder, asked during the Magid (telling) and called Mah Nishtanah in Hebrew, asks “On all other nights we eat either sitting or reclining, why on this night do we eat only reclining?” We know from rabbinic literature that the reclining was done toward the left: "lying down on the back, is not called הסיבה, ‘lying down’; and lying on the right side, is not called lying down.'' -Mishnah Beracot, c. 6. sect. 6. "they used to eat lying along, leaning on the left side, their feet to the ground, and every man on a single couch.'' -Gloss in Talmud Bavliy Beracot, fol. 46. 2. & Bartenora in Mishnah Beracot, c. 6. sect. 6. "when there were but two couches, the principal person lay first, and the second to him above him; and when there were three, the principal person lay in the middle, the second to him above him, and the third below him; and if he would talk with him, he raised himself upright, and sitting upright he talked with him; that is, as the gloss explains it, if the principal person was desirous to talk with him that was second to him, he must raise himself up from his lying down, and sit upright; for all the white he is leaning, he cannot talk with him, because he that is second to him, is behind the head of the principal person, and the face of the principal person is turned to the other side; and it is better for the second to sit below him, that he may hear his words, whilst he is leaning.'' -Talmud Bavliy Beracot, fol. 46. 2. The “disciple whom Yeshua loved” is obviously Yochanan (John) the author of the Gospel, who is writing in the third person and thus does not refer to himself by name (Ref. John 19:26-27; 21:20). This does not negate Yeshua’s love for all, nor His love for His immediate retinue. Rather, it shows that while God loves all equally, Yeshua, Who is also fully human has some friends who are closer than others and favours them in certain ways. Showing favour to one person does not detract from one’s love for another. Only when we allow the sin affected world to influence our thoughts are we driven to become jealous of the favour bestowed on others. As true followers of Yeshua we should rejoice when we see brothers and sisters honoured, regardless of whether honour is bestowed on us. Notice that Kefa (Peter) must gesture to Yochanan (John) in order to get his attention, and uses further non-verbal signals to indicate what he would like Yochanan to ask Yeshua. This denotes a close friendship between Yochanan and Kefa, given that there is obviously a certain innate understanding between them concerning certain gestures and facial expressions. Nor is Kefa upset that Yochanan gets to sit closer to Yeshua, he simply wants to know what’s going on because he loves Yeshua and all the other disciples present with him. 25 Therefore, as he (the disciple whom Yeshua loved) was leaning back on Yeshua’s[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) breast, said to Him, “Lord (Kurios[G], Adonay[H]), who is it?” 26 Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) then answered, “It is he to whom I will give the dipped matzah (psomion[G]: small piece of bread).” So when He had dipped the matzah (psomion[G]: small piece of bread), He gave it to Yehudah[H] (Judah: praise) ben Shimon[H] (son of he hears) Ish Kariot[H] (a man of Keriot[H], A town in the south of Judah: Joshua 15:25). The Greek psomion means “small bit of bread”. From the Gospel accounts of Matthew 26:17, 23; Mark 14:1, 12, 20; and Luke 22:1, 7 we learn that the “small bit of bread” was unleavened bread, that is matzah: which is used in preparation for Pesach and eaten over the seven days of unleavened bread. This is yet another reason why it is highly likely that the meal in question is some form of pre-Passover Seder observance. It cannot be simply an ordinary meal as many Christian theologians insist because as we have previously discussed, the Greek deipnon denotes a formal meal (13:2). While Chapter 13 begins prior to Pesach proper, there is no way to determine a precise chronology following this except to say that these events took place before or on the eve of Passover at some point. This does not negate the possibility of a Seder, rather it informs us of the possibility that Passover practice in the first century during the Temple period may well have included multiple Seders and other varied traditions as pretext to the Temple Chagigah (a Pesach sacrificial practice of the first century Temple period). “He gave it to Yehudah” But not only to Yehudah. This practice of dipping and passing matzot included everyone at the table. The text does not say that Yeshua gave it only to Yehudah, nor does it say that He gave it first to Yehudah, just that He gave it to Yehudah after dipping it. The fact that all received this ritual food qualifies the confusion of the disciples as to what was happening even after the food was received by Yehudah and he left to betray Yeshua. It is obvious from the following verses that the disciples still had no idea that Yehudah would betray Yeshua. 27 After he had received the matzah (psomion[G]: small piece of bread) then entered (eiserchomai[G]) toward (eis[G]) him [Judas] the (ho[G]) Satan[H] (accuser, opposition). Therefore Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) said to him, “What you do, do quickly.” 28 Now no one of those reclining to dine (anakeimai[G]) knew (ginosko[G]) for what purpose He (Yeshua) had said this to him (Judas). We note that Satan did not enter into and possess Yehudah but that he “entered toward him”. God Who is just does not remove or allow the removal of a person’s freewill. Therefore, while Yehudah was influenced by and chose to be directed by Satan, he did so of his own freewill and not based on some kind of absolute possession of his will, mind, body, emotion, and being. If possession were the meaning, the text would both contradict the wealth of Scripture to the contrary and impugn the character of God. “13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” -Yaakov (James) 1:13-15 NIV As discussed previously, “no one of those reclining to dine knew” because the food was shared equally and from the same dipping bowl, in the same way hummus is shared on pita scooped from the same bowl. Yeshua offered dipped matzah to all present as part of the dining ritual. Therefore, every one of them was “one to whom” He gave dipped matzah. 29 For some were supposing, because Yehudah[H] (Judah: praise) had the money box (glossokomon[G]), that Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) was saying to him, “Buy the things we have need of for the festival (ha chag[H])”; or else, that he should give something to the poor. There are a number of arguments put forward against the idea that this meal is a Passover Seder or ritual meal of some kind. Some say that Halakhah prohibits financial transactions on the Sabbath or festivals and therefore, the disciples would not have thought Yehudah to be going to buy at Yeshua’s command because Yeshua would not command this on the Holy day. However, this is wrong for two reasons: first, oral law denying purchase of necessities at certain times was not yet codified, second, the text does not say that Yeshua instructed Yehudah to buy but that the disciples “supposed” that Yeshua had done so. Another argument against the idea that this is a Seder meal is that If Yehudah was thought to be purchasing supplies for the Passover, it was already too late to do so. However, Passover was the convergent point for the beginning of the days of unleavened bread which continued seven days and there were chol hamoed (intermediary days of the festival) on which Yehudah could have purchased goods for the remainder of the festival, had he been sent to do so. Therefore, again, this does not negate the possibility that this was a Passover Seder meal. On weighing the evidence for this being a Seder meal against the arguments against, and keeping in mind that the chronology of John’s Gospel is by no means systematic. It is my opinion that this was a Seder meal (either one of two or a single Seder prior to the day of the Chagigah offering). This fits best with the collected accounts of the Gospels and the time line of events leading up to Yeshua’s death and resurrection. 30 So after receiving the small piece of matzah Yehudah[H] (he) went out immediately; and it was night (v’laylah hayah[H]). 31 Therefore when he had gone out, Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) said, “Now is the Son of Man (Ben-ha’Adam[H]) glorified, magnified, clothed with splendour (doxazo[G]), and the God (v’haElohiym[H]) is glorified, magnified, clothed with splendour (doxazo[G]) in Him; “And it was night” is the counterpoint to the all existing Light alluded to in the previous chapter. Yehudah had chosen to walk in darkness rather than to walk in the all existing light of Yeshua. “Now is the Son of Man glorified” Yeshua used the Messianic title prophesied by Daniel to indicate that by allowing Yehudah to leave Yeshua had set in place the final stages of His journey to glory. Also, in a very real sense the transcendent resurrected Messiah Yeshua had already died and raised to glory, and thus “Now” (outside of time and space) both He and the Father were glorified. This qualifies the concept of the eternal present. 32 if the God is (Ho Theos[G], Ha Elohiym[H]) glorified, magnified, clothed with splendour (doxazo[G]) in Him, God (Ho Theos[G], Ha Elohiym[H]) will also glorify, magnify, clothe with splendour (doxazo[G]) Him in Himself, and will glorify, magnify, clothe with splendour (doxazo[G]) Him immediately. 33 Little children (Teknion[G], mikron[G], Banay hay’kariym[H]), I am with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and as I said to the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]), now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’ “Banay hay’kariym” is a term of endearment, as if speaking to one’s own precious progeny. Yeshua speaks as a Father to His disciples, because He speaks of the Father and the Father is echad with Yeshua. Elsewhere Yeshua says, “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father”(John 14:9). 34 A new (kainos[G]) injunction, command, mitzvah[H] (entole[G]) I give to you, that you entirely love (agapao[G], t’eihavu[H]) one another, even as I have entirely loved (agapao[G], ahavtiy[H]) you, that you also entirely love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples (talmidim[H]), if you have love (agapao[G], te’ehavun[H]) for one another.” Some have said that this is not a new command. After all HaShem has said “Love your neighbour as yourself” Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:18. However, the context, source and application of Yeshua’s mitzvah (command) is unique and truly “new” in every sense of the word. Note that Yeshua is speaking to His disciples, who are now ritually washed as priests. While this command can be said to apply to all believers by extension, it does not in its original context apply to anyone other than the Jewish disciples of Yeshua present at the meal. This mitzvah, unlike the command to love one’s neighbour (which means that one should love all human beings), refers specifically to the love between disciples of Yeshua. Therefore, if it is to be applied by extension to the body of believers it must be applied as the love of one believer for another believer. Additionally it is qualified by the phrase “as I have entirely loved you”. No human being can love as Yeshua does unless that person is filled with the Spirit of Yeshua. Therefore, in order for the disciples to obey Yeshua’s mitzvah they will need to be filled with the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Of course that is exactly what happens at the subsequent Shavuot (Pentecost). Only when the disciples of Yeshua are filled with His Spirit will “all human beings know” that they are His disciples, and the same is true of us. Far too many believing communities neglect love for one another in favour of loving and helping those outside the community. The great irony is that Yeshua teaches that only by loving one another will the Gospel spread. In contradiction to Yeshua’s teaching we seek to love and do good for unbelievers at the expense of the love and good of our believing brothers and sisters and in doing so we fail to see the spread of the Gospel. Rather than allow our love for one another to overflow into the community we instead go into the wider unbelieving community while our believing communities dwindle, diminish and cease to exist. Therefore, in contradiction to Yeshua’s teaching we snuff out the Light of the Gospel in our communities, leaving them in darkness. If we desire to be effective in loving the unsaved we must first be effective in loving one another and that is only possible by the power of the Living Messiah in us, the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit). For He has said “Entirely love one another, even as I have entirely loved you”! 36 Shimon Kefa[H] (Simon: hears; Peter: Rock) said to Him, “Lord “(Kurios[G], Adonay[H]), where are You going?” Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) answered, “Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later.” Yeshua is going to His death, resurrection, ascension, a place that Kefa (Peter) cannot follow Him to yet. But Kefa will follow Yeshua later. Church tradition says that Kefa was crucified upside down for his faith in Yeshua, refusing to be crucified upright because his Messiah Who was greater than he was crucified that way. 37 Kefa[H] (Peter: Rock) said to Him, “Lord “(Kurios[G], Adonay[H]), why can’t I follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.” Kefa often gets a bad rap. He is a man of excitable passion and true faith, at times presumptuous and rash but none the less devout and genuine. When Kefa said this he meant it with all his heart. We should be so bold. 38 Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) answered, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Amen[H] [G]Amen[H] [G] (B’emet[H], B’emet[H]), In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I (Aniy[H]) say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times. Yeshua, knowing the end from the beginning and in the emotion and turmoil of His humanity is perhaps hurt by Kefa’s rash proclamation. I hear Yeshua’s words in response said with a sad resolve and without malice, “Will you really lay down your life for Me? Oh Kefa, it is an immutable fact that you will deny me three times while I’m on trial, all before the cock crows at the dawn of the new day. I’ve already seen it happen.” (Author’s paraphrase) © Yaakov Brown 2020 "The messenger of a man is as himself" - Talmud Bavliy. Beracot Introduction:
What follows is an extension of Yeshua’s teaching regarding Him being the all existing Light in which a disciple should walk (practice faith: halakhah). This is worth remembering in light of the ritual washing of feet (means of walking, halakhah) Yeshua now performs for His disciples. 1Moreover, before the Festival (chag[H]) of the Passover (ha-Pesach[H]:to pass over), Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua), seeing, perceiving (eido[G]) that His certain definite time, fixed season, hour (hora[G]) had come, in which He would pass over (metabaino[G]) from this world (ho kosmos[G], ha-olam[H]) to the advantage of (pros[G]) the Father (ho Pater[G], Ha-Av[H]), having entirely loved (agapao[G], ahav[H]) those belonging to Him who were in the world (ho kosmos[G], ba-olam[H]), He entirely loved (agapao[G], aheivam[H]) them toward (eis[G]) the taxing goal (telos[G]). These events appear to take place the evening prior to Pesach (Passover) during the first of two possible Seders (ritual Passover meals) practiced by post exilic Jews in the first century CE. If this is not a Seder then the Seder accounts of the other Gospels must fit between the current passage and the arrest of Yeshua which soon follows. Regardless, the Greek text calls this a formal (deipnon[G]) meal, which seems to fit with the Seder theory. It is no coincidence that the Greek metabaino[G] means to “pass over”. Thus, Yeshua is about to become the figurative Pesach Lamb of Israel and pass over from this world into death and resurrection “to the advantage of the Father”, meaning in order to provide the means by which the Father might be reconciled to His children (humanity). In the case of Messiah “entirely loving” His disciples, His people ethnic Israel, He would now pretext the fulfilment of that love (death on a cross) by acting the role of the lowliest servant of the household. Thus, He entirely loved them with the taxing goal of their redemption in mind (His death and resurrection). 2 During the formal (evening) meal (deipnon[G]: probably one of two Passover Seders in the post exilic returned Jewish community of first century occupied [Roman] Israel), the devil (ho diabolos[G], ha Satan[H]: accuser, slanderer) having already put into the inner being, heart (ho kardia[G], ha-leiv[H]) of Yehudah[H] (Judah: praise) Ish Kariot[H] (a man of Keriot[H], A town in the south of Judah: Joshua 15:25), the son of Shimon[H] (heard), to betray Him (Yeshua), 3 Seeing, perceiving (eido[G]) that the Father (ho Pater[G], Ha-Av[H]) had given (natan[H]) all things (et ha-kol[H]) into His hands (b’yado[H]), and that He had originated (apo[G]) from God (Theos[G], Elohiym[H]) and was going back to God (Theos[G], Elohiym[H]), “The Father had given all things into His hands” tells us that Yeshua was completely free to choose whether He would go through with His mission. Elsewhere we read: “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life, breath, soul existence so that I may take it up again. No one, nothing has taken it away from Me or separated Me from it, but I lay it down on My own initiative, in My Own power, by My Own choice. I have authority, power, choice to lay it down, and to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” -Yochanan 10:17-18 4 He rose from the formal (evening) meal (deipnon[G]: probably one of two Passover Seders in the post exilic returned Jewish community of first century occupied [Roman] Israel), and put aside His garments, outer clothing (himation[G]); and taking a towel, He girded Himself. 5 Then He poured water (hudor[G], mayim[H]) into the basin (nipter[G]), and began to ritually wash (nipto[G]) the disciples’ (talmidim[H]) feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. In John’s Gospel Yeshua acts out the teaching that He is recorded as having given in the Gospel according to Mark 10:43-44. The Greek text uses the word nipto[G] which can refer to ritual washing. In the present context Yeshua rises from the dining table in order to wash the feet of His disciples. This means that the practical feet washing performed for guests entering the home had already occurred prior to the meal upon the arrival of Yeshua and His disciples. In short, their feet were already clean (of the dust of the road). Therefore, the correct translation is “began to ritually wash the disciples’ feet”. It is not by accident that the water is poured into a basin and Yeshua strips down to His undergarment, a seamless white garment like that of the priesthood of Israel. “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Yeshua, took his garments and divided them into four pieces; and they also took his undergarment (chiton) which was seamless, woven from top to bottom entirely. Therefore they said among themselves, ‘Let’s not tear it, but instead cast dice to decide who gets it’.” -Yochanan 19:23 “17 Adonai spoke to Moses saying, 18 “You will also make a basin of bronze with a bronze stand for washing. You are to place it between the Tent of Meeting and the altar and put water in it. 19 Aaron and his sons are to wash their hands and their feet there. 20 Whenever they go into the Tent of Meeting or come near to the altar to minister, to present an offering made by fire in smoke to Adonai, they are to wash with water so that they do not die. 21 They are to wash their hands and their feet, so that they do not die. It is to be an eternal statute for them, to him and to his offspring throughout their generations.” -Shemot (Exodus) 30:17-21 TLV Yeshua is not only taking on the role of the lowliest servant of the household, as the Priest like Melkiy-tzedek (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5 through 7), He ritually washes the priests whom He has chosen to administer His Gospel when He ascends to the Father. Therefore, as is necessary before the priests approach the altar where His death will take place, He washes their feet as a symbol of their identity in Him and the role that they are to play in the events that follow. The text of Exodus 30:17-21 tells us that the ritual washing of the priests cleanses them for approaching the Holy God of Israel. This is one of the reasons for Yeshua’s dialogue with Kefa (Peter). 6 So He came to Shimon Kefa[H] (Simon: hears; Peter: Rock) who said to Him, “Adonay[H] (Kurios[G], Lord), do You wash my feet?” 7 Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) answered and said to him, “What I do you do not see, perceive, recognize (eido[G]) now, in this moment (arti[G]) but you will know it intimately (ginosko[G], yodeia[H]) hereafter.” It is interesting to note that Simon Peter’s name essentially means “He hears the Rock”. HaShem is the Rock of Israel, her place of strength and shelter, and His Son Yeshua is the physical manifestation of God as Rock. “The Ruach Adonai has spoken through me and His word is on my tongue. 3 The God of Israel has said, the Rock of Israel has spoken to me, ‘He who rules over men righteously, he who rules in the fear of God-- 4 he is like the light of the morning when the sun rises, a cloudless morning of glistening as grass springs from the earth.’” -2 Samuel 23:2-4 TLV Yeshua responds to Shimon Kefa by placing a marker in his mind that he is to recall later at such a time as is important for him to perceive of what Yeshua has done and the role that Simon Peter has been given in the outworking of God’s kingdom through Messiah Yeshua. 8 Kefa[H] (Peter: Rock) said to Him, “You will never wash my feet!” Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 Shimon Kefa[H] (Simon: hears; Peter: Rock) said to Him, “Adonay[H] (Kurios[G], Lord), then wash not only my feet (rag’lay[H]), but also my hands (yaday[H]) and my head (roshiy[H]).” Kefa (Peter) protests because he does not want the Rabbi Whom he venerates, respects, and adores to lower himself to a place of dishonour and servitude. He may be brash but his heart is in the right place. However, Yeshua is focused on the time that is at hand and has no time for playacting Kefa’s misplaced zeal. Therefore, Yeshua is harsh with Kefa because of His deep love for this disciple. “Snap out of it son, this is for your good!” Kefa’s response is incredible, rather than be deterred he doesn’t skip a beat but says “Okay, I’m in boots and all!” Yeshua is washing feet because He has recently explained that those who desire to serve Him must become His disciples and walk (using their spiritual feet) in His Light. Kefa adds the symbolism of hands (actions) and head (leader, governor of the body), and Yeshua responds… 10 Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) said to him, “He who has bathed, washed the whole body (louo[G]) needs only to ritually wash (nipto[G]) his feet, moreover he is completely clean, pure (katharos[G]); and you are clean, pure (katharos[G]), but not all of you.” 11 For He saw (eido[G]) the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean, pure (katharos[G]).” Yeshua explains that in Him His disciples are entirely clean and need only be reminded of the fact that in their transcendent state of salvation in Him they must, at least for a while, continue to walk their faith in the sin affected world as ones who have been redeemed (past, present, future) and are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). This mysterious tension between certain salvation and continued sanctification is explained further in Yochanan’s first letter: “5 Now this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you—that God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with Him and keep walking in the darkness, we are lying and do not practice the truth. [a] 7 But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of His Son Yeshua purifies us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. [b] 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” -1 John 1:5-10 TLV “But not all” refers to Yehudah (Judas), who has clearly not placed his trust in Yeshua as King Messiah and is therefore intent on following the desires of his baser nature and has been enticed by the lies of the father of lies Satan. 12 So when He had ritually washed (nipto[G]) their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know (ginosko[G], hay’da’tem[H]) what I have done to you? 13 You call Me the Teacher (Moreh[H]) and the Lord (ho Kurios[G], Adon[H]); and [b]you are right, for I am (eimi[G]). 14 If I then, the Teacher (Moreh[H]) the lord (ho Kurios[G], Adon[H]), ritually washed (nipto[G]) your feet, you also ought to ritually wash (nipto[G]) one another’s feet. 15 For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Here Yeshua says “Do you ginosko (know)” rather than “Do you eido (perceive, see)”. This is because He is asking them if they have gained knowledge that will result in practice. The message is that as disciples of Yeshua they are to follow His example of service and to affirm one another in the priesthood they share in Him. This is pretexted by the Torah which says that the ethnic, religious, empirical Jewish people have been chosen as a nation of priests. Therefore, the Gospel and priesthood of Messiah continues to be first for the Jew. Yeshua is saying that the gifts and calling of God upon the ethnic Jewish people are irrevocable (Romans 1:16; 11:29). “and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.” -Shemot (Exodus) 19:6 NASB Only then is the offer of priesthood in Messiah extended to the nations, not as usurpers of Israel’s rightful place but as participants in the faith (a spiritual relationship) of Abraham. The later does not negate the former, nor does it cause the former to cease. Therefore: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvellous light;” -1 Peter 2:9 NASB 16 Amen[H] [G]Amen[H] [G] (B’emet[H], B’emet[H]), In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I (Aniy[H]) say to you, a bond servant (doulos[G]) is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you see, perceive, recognize (eido[G]) these things, you are blessed (well off) if you do them. The double amein reminds us once again of the firmly established truth of what follows. Yeshua admonishes His disciples to accept the sight He has imparted to them and see with spiritual clarity the King Messiah as their ever present Servant King and the Father as the Originator of Israel’s relationship to Himself. Yeshua’s disciples must remember that He is greater than they and has submitted Himself to His Master YHVH. Therefore, they should emulate their Master Yeshua for God’s glory. In doing so Yeshua promises them that they will experience true blessing as a result of their right actions in emulating Him. "R. Meir says, who is greatest, he that keeps, or he that is kept? from what is written in Psalm 91:11, he that is kept, is greater than he that keeps: says R. Judah, which is greatest, he that carries, or he that is carried? from what is written in Psalm 91:12, he that is carried, is greater than he that carries: says R. Simeon, from what is written, in Isaiah 6:8, הוי המשלח גדול מן המשתלח, "he that sends, is greater than he that is sent".'' - Bereshit Rabba, fol. 68. 1. “If you recognise these things blessed are you if you do them.” "he that learns but not to do", it would have been better for him, if he had never been created; and says R. Yochanan, he that learns but not to do, it would have been better for him if his placenta/membrane (secundine) had been turned upon his face, and he had never come into the world.'' - Hieros. Beracot, fol. 3. 2. 18 I don’t speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but that the Writing (graphe[G], ketviy[H]) may be fully filled, ‘He who eats My bread (lachmiy[H]) has lifted up his heel (akeiv[H]) upon Me.[Psalm 41:10(9)]’ “Even my close friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me. 10 But You, O Lord, be gracious to me and raise me up, That I may repay them. 11 By this I know that You are pleased with me, Because my enemy does not shout in triumph over me. 12 As for me, You uphold me in my integrity, And You set me in Your presence forever. 13 Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, From everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen.” -Psalm 41:9-13 NASB We note that the fullness which the Gospel writer is alluding to begins with betrayal but ends with the betrayed one held up in His integrity and set before God’s presence forever. “Lifted up his heel” is a Jewish idiom that means “He was inspired by his pride to do harm”. 19 From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe, trust, be persuaded (pisteuo[G], v’he’emantem[H]) that I am (ego eimi[G]). “From now on” is an indication that Yeshua will no longer teach them in mashaliym (parables) but will speak in clear terms. Yet again the Greek phrase ego eimi reflects the Divine title “I AM”. Yeshua is placing yet another mental marker in the minds of the disciples so that when they see what is to come (His death, resurrection, and ascension), they might be certain of His Deity. 20 Amen[H] [G]Amen[H] [G] (B’emet[H], B’emet[H]), In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I (Aniy[H]) say to you, the one who receives whomever I send receives Me; and the one who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” Again, the double amein establishes the truth of what follows. Those who receive the disciples and their message of Yeshua’s Gospel are, in a spiritual and transcendent way, receiving Yeshua Who will dwell in them by His Spirit, that is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Subsequently those who will receive the messengers (disciples) sent by Yeshua will receive Yeshua Himself and in doing so will receive God the Father in perfect reconciliation and preordained eternal relationship. Of course, the opposite is also true. Those who reject those sent by Yeshua (His disciples, including modern believers) reject Yeshua and in turn reject the Father. This is especially true of those who reject Jewish believers who bring the message of the King Messiah Yeshua. של אדם כמותו ששלוחו "the messenger of a man is as himself". - Talmud Bavliy. Beracot, fol. 34. 2. Kiddushin, fol. 41. 9. & 42. 1. & 43. 1. Bava Metzia, fol. 96. 1. “Whoever claims to abide in Him must walk as Yeshua did!” -1 Yochanan (John) 2:6 © Yaakov Brown 2020 Sefer Yochanan (Gospel According to John) Chapter 6 Pt.2Eat My Flesh & Drink My Blood (John 6:33-71)27/3/2020
“For the soul living of the flesh is in the blood; and Him I have given to all of you upon the altar to purge, make reconciliation upon your soul existence: for the blood, He is in the soul purging reconciliation.” -Vayikra (Leviticus) 17:11 (Author’s Translation) Introduction:
What follows is the extension of Yeshua’s exposition regarding the manna from the heavens and His identity as the “True Manna” from the heavens. This idea is further developed and illuminated in the hearing of His listeners and culminates in a sifting of the wheat from the chaff (making a distinction between the devout disciples and the faithless ones). Leaving only the faithful few at His side. 34 Therefore (oun[G]), they said to Him (Yeshua), “Lord, Master (Kurios[G], Adoniy[H]), always give (tanah lanu[H]) us this (touton[G], et[H], ha-zeh[H]) the bread (ho artos[G], ha-lechem[H]).” 34 Therefore, they said to Yeshua, “Lord, Master, always give us this the bread.” “Therefore” relates to all that has gone before, the sign of the loaves and fishes, the sign of the walking on water, and the subsequent teaching regarding the true Author of the manna given to Israel’s forebears. They are responding to the words that Yeshua has just spoken concerning His identity as the bread from heaven, however, they have not understood what He has said. “JOHN 6:33 For the bread (lechem[H]) of God (Theos[G], Elohiym[H]) is Him (hu[H]) Who comes down (hayoreid[H]) out of the heavens (ouranos[G], ha-shamayim[H]), and gives (notein[H]) living (zoe[G], chayiym[H]) to the world (kosmos[G], laolam[H]).” “They” That is, some of those present. It is impossible to know how many addressed Yeshua with this request. “Lord” To call Yeshua Lord denotes respect but it does not reflect the inner being of those who are petitioning Him. “Always give us this bread” This is an ironically insightful use of language, however, it is clear from their response later in the text, that they were seeking something other than what Yeshua was offering. At Yeshua’s final Pesach (Passover) Seder meal one of those present reflected their first century Jewish understanding of the metaphysical nature of the Olam Haba (World to come/Kingdom of God & His Messiah King): “When one of those who reclined at table with Him heard these things, he said to him, “Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” -Luke 14:15 (ESV) Our sages say of the manna: “in the manna were all kinds of tastes, and everyone of the Israelites tasted all that he desired; for so it is written in Devarim (Deut.) 2:7, "these forty years the Lord your God has been with you, you have lacked nothing", or "not wanted for anything"; what is anything? when he desired to eat anything, and said with his mouth, O that I had fat to eat, immediately there was in his mouth the taste of fat. Young men tasted the taste of bread, old men the taste of honey, and children the taste of oil.'' -Shemot Rabba, sect. 25. fol. 108. 4. And: "whoever desired flesh, he tasted it, and whoever desired fish, he tasted it, and whoever desired fowl, chicken, pheasant, or pea hen, so he tasted whatever he desired.'' -Bamidbar Rabba, sect. 7. fol. 188. 1. 35 Yeshua[H, A] (Iesous[G], YHVH Saves, Jesus, Joshua) said to them, “I Am, I exist, I’m present, I’m happening, I AM He (ego eimi [G], Anachiy hu[H]) the bread (ho artos[G], lechem[H]) of the life, living (ho zoe[G], ha-chayiym[H]); all (kol[H]) who come (ha-bah[H]) to Me (eme[G]) will not hunger, continue to be hungry (peinao[G]), and all who believe, are persuaded of, have placed confidence, trusted (pisteuo[G], yamiyn[H]) in Me (eme[G]) will never at any time, perpetually (popote[G], od[H]) suffer from thirst (dispsao[G]). 35 Yeshua said to them, “I Am, I exist, I’m present, I’m happening, I AM He the bread of the life, living; all who come to Me will not hunger, continue to be hungry, and all who believe, are persuaded of, have placed confidence, trusted in Me will never at any time, perpetually suffer from thirst. “I AM, I Exist” This is the self-existing statement of God the Father (Ex. 3:14; Jn. 1:1-3; 6:20; 8:58). For the religiously observant Jewish reader there is no question that Yeshua is claiming deity. “I Am the bread of perpetual living” Yeshua is not just a form of bread but is the eternally sustaining bread of the unbroken age (Olam Haba) “all who come to Me will not hunger, continue to be hungry,” Coming to Yeshua is the first step in response to His invitation. One can’t believe, trust, without first having come. The Kohen who wrote the book of Hebrews reminds us: “But without faith it is impossible to please God: because in order for a person to come to God, that person must first believe that God exists, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” -Hebrews 11:6 (Author’s translation) To hunger is to be devoid of the necessary fuel for existence. Therefore, to be free from hunger is to be perpetually energized. “and all who believe in Me will never at any time, perpetually suffer from thirst.” Coming to God through Yeshua is the beginning, believing is a continuing act of the will and by its nature means the receipt of salvation (yeshuah). To thirst means to be devoid of the primary resource of life. To use modern terminology, the body is made up predominantly of water, and can survive not more than three days without it. How much more important then, are the metaphorical waters of eternal existence. Yeshua promises these mayiym chatiym (living waters) to all who continue to believe in Him. 36 And I (ve’Aniy[H]) behold, pay attention (hineih[H]) have spoken to you, since (hoti[G]) indeed (kai[G], gam[H]) you have seen, observed (horao[G], chaziytim[H]) Me (otiy[H]) with your eyes, and yet are not (lo[H]) persuaded, convinced, trusting, believing (pisteuo[G], te’miynu[H]). 36 And I, behold, pay attention, have spoken to you, since indeed you have seen, observed Me with your eyes, and yet are not persuaded, convinced, trusting, believing. In other words. Yeshua is expounding on the concepts He has seeded in order to provide His hearers with the greatest possible opportunity to receive His teaching and come to repentance. 37 All [individually] (kol[H]) that My Father [the Father] (ho Pater[G], Aviy[H]) gives (yit’nenu[H], didomi[G]) Me will come (Yavo[H]) to Me (eme[G]), and the one who comes (erchomai[G], ve’haba[H]) to Me I will certainly not (lo[H]) cast, drive, send, repulse (ekballo[G], eh’dafenu[H]) outside (exo[G], hachutzah[H]). 37 All (individually) that My Father [the Father] gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast, drive, send, repulse outside. In one verse the foolish debate pitting predestination against freewill is silenced. “All individually that my Father GIVES Me (Predestination)… and the one who comes to Me (Freewill)…” Therefore the answer to the false choice “Freewill or Predestination?” is “Yes!” Grace is offered to all but can only be received by the repentant. Predestination can’t exist without Love. Love can’t be reciprocated without Freewill. Therefore, the Chooser, knowing the outcome, proposes relationship, and the chosen choose to be predestined. Predestination is a fruit of God’s nature stemming from the fact that He sees the end from the beginning (something we are incapable of ). Freewill is the seed of our view from within time and space, that when fully grown produces the tree from which it came. 38 For (kiy[H]) I have not (lo[H]) come down (katabaino[G], yarad’tiy[H]) from (min[H]) the heavens (ouranos[G], ha-shamayim[H]) to do, make, accomplish (poieo[G], la’asot[H]) My own will, determinations, wishes (thelema[G], retzoniy[H]), but the will, determinations, wishes of Him (thelema[G], im-retzon[H]) Who sent Me (pempo[G], sholchiy[H]). 38 For I have not come down from the heavens to do, make, accomplish My own will, determinations, wishes, but the will, determinations, wishes of Him who sent Me. Having descended from the Father in the heavens, Yeshua has come to do the will of the Father Who sent Him. The Hebrew “sholchiy” meaning sent me is related to the Hebrew Shaliyach, sent one, emissary or Apostle. In these terms Yeshua is the first and Ultimate Apostle. As is the case in all things, Yeshua submits His will to God’s will, thus showing the order and unity of the Godhead. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son but the Son is not outside the Father, and therefore He submits to the Father. 39 And this is (ve’zeh[H]) the will, determination, wish of Him [the Father] (thelema[G], retzon ha-Av[H]) Who sent Me (pempo[G], sh’lachaniy[H]), that of all [individually] (kol[H]) that He has given (didomi[G], hanitan[H]) Me I destroy, render useless (apollumi[G]) nothing (lo-yovar[H]), but raise it up (anistemi[G], akiymenu[H]) on [in] the extreme, uttermost, last (eschatos[G]) day (hemera[G]) [bayom ha-acharon[H]]. 39 And this is the will, determination, wish of Him [the Father] Who sent Me, that of all [individually] that He has given Me I destroy, render useless nothing, but raise it up on [in] the extreme, uttermost, last day. “All that He has given Me” Includes all creation and those human beings who have been predestined to become His. Note that nothing given to Yeshua will suffer destruction. The resurrection is the resurrection and transformation of the present body into a transcendent metaphysical body. We will not rise as spirits alone (a pagan Gnostic idea) but as a redeemed unity of body, mind, spirit, heart, soul, breath. It’s interesting to note that the Zohar speaks in similar terms regarding the resurrection of the latter day: ולא יתאביד כלום, "and not anything shall be lost", but all shall rise again; for, lo, it is said, Dan. 12:2, "and many of them that sleep in the dust", &c.'' -Zohar in Exod. fol. 43. 4. 40 For this is the will, determination, wish (thelema[G], retzon[H]) of My Father (Pater mou[G], Aviy[H]), that everyone individually (pas[G], kol[H]) who beholds, sees (theoreo[G], ha-roeh[H]) the Son (ho uihos[G], et ha-Ben[H]) and believes, is persuaded, trusts (pisteuo[G], uma’amiyn[H]) in Him will have, hold (echo[G]) eternal, perpetual, unending, life, living (zoe aionios[G], chayeiy olam[H]) [living in a perpetual world], and I Myself (ego[G], va’Aniy[H]) will raise him up (anistemi[G], akiymenu[H]) on [in] the extreme, uttermost, last (eschatos[G]) day (hemera[G]) [bayom ha-acharon[H]].” 40 For this is the will, determination, wish of My Father, that everyone individually who beholds, sees the Son and believes, is persuaded, trusts in Him will have, hold eternal, perpetual, unending, life, living [living in a perpetual world], and I Myself will raise him up on [in] the extreme, uttermost, last day.” Note that all who believe will hold or have (past tense) unending life. This life begins upon receipt of Yeshua and not at the resurrection. Those who receive Yeshua have already begun to live eternally. The life a believer lives in Yeshua is transcendent by nature of His transcendent person dwelling within each believer. “Yeshua said to her, ‘I Am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will continue to live, even if he dies.’” -Yochanan (John) 11:25 "They shall be gathered from their captivity, they shall sit under the shadow of their Messiah, "and the dead shall live", and good shall be multiplied in the land.'' -Targum Hosea 14:8 "the holy blessed God will quicken the righteous, and they shall not return to their dust.'' -T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 92. 1. "the land (of the living), whose dead live first in the days of the Messiah.” -T. Hieros. Kilaim, fol. 32. 3. It is said that Rabbi Jeremiah wanted to he buried with his clothes and shoes on, and his staff in his hand, so that when the Messiah came, he would be ready (T. Hieros. Kilaim, foi. 32. 3. col. 2.). Kimchi says regarding Isaiah 66:5: "They shall live at the resurrection of the dead, in the days of the Messiah.'' And regarding Jeremiah 23:20: ""ye" shall consider, and not "they" shall consider; which intimates the "resurrection of the dead in the days of the Messiah".'' Iben Ezra says regarding Daniel 12:2: "The righteous which die in captivity shall live, when the Redeemer comes;'' 41 Therefore the Judeans, religious Jews (Ioudaios[G], Ha-Yehudiym[H]) were grumbling, muttering, speaking in a low tone (gogguzo[G]) about Him (Yeshua), because He said, “I Am, I exist, I’m present, I’m happening, I AM He (Ego[G] eimi[G], Anochiy[H]) Him (hu[H]) the bread (ho artos[G], ha-lechem[H]) that came down (katabaino[G], hayoreid[H]) out of heavens (ho ouranos[G], min-hashamayim[H]).” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Yeshua[H] [A] (Iesous[G] YHVH Saves), the son (uihos[G], ben[H]) of Yosef[H] (Joseph: YHVH adds), whose father (et aviyu[H]) and mother (et imo[H]) we know (yod’iym[H])? How does He now say, ‘I have come down (batiy[H]) out of the heavens (ek ho ouranos[G], min-hashamayim[H])?” 41 Therefore the Judeans, religious Jews were grumbling, muttering, speaking in a low tone about Him, because He said, “I am, I exist, I’m present, I’m happening, I AM He, Him the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Yeshua, the son of Yosef, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of the heavens?” Those Judean religious Jews speaking about Yeshua (behind His back as it were) did so in a muttering low tone in order to speak ill of Him without Him being able to hear clearly. These same Judeans may have consisted of those who had been offended by His healing on the Shabbat during Purim in Jerusalem. The Hebrew text makes it very clear why the Judeans were upset. In Hebrew Yeshua said “I Am Him the bread that came down from the heavens”. To them this could be heard as nothing short of blasphemy. The “I Am” phrase being the same as in the former use and referring to Yeshua’s deity. Notice that these particular Judeans were familiar with the family of Yeshua. Perhaps even close to the family in community with them. They knew Yosef and Miriyam and were incredulous at the idea that an uneducated labourer’s son might claim such high standing. “How does He now say” is equivalent to, “What qualifies him to speak this way?” or “This guy’s got a lot of chutzpah if He thinks He can get away with saying…” 43 Yeshua[H] [A] (Iesous[G] YHVH Saves) answered and said to them, “Do not mutter, grumble, speak in a low tone (gogguzo[G]) among yourselves. 44 No one (oudeis[G]) is able, has the power to (dunamai[G]) come (erchomai[G], lavo[H]) to Me unless My Father [the Father] (ho Pater[G], Aviy[H]) Who sent (pempo[G], shelachaniy[H]) Me draws, drags (helkuo[G]) him; and I (Kago[G], va’Aniy[H]) will raise him up (anistemi[G], akiymenu[H]) on the extreme last (eschatos[G]) day (hemera[G]) [bayom ha-acharon[H]]. 43 Yeshua answered and said to them, “Do not mutter, grumble, speak in a low tone among yourselves. 44 No one is able, has the power to come to Me unless My Father [the Father] Who sent Me draws, drags him; and I will raise him up on the extreme last day. Yeshua rebukes them for their rudeness and explains their own incredulity to them. The Greek uses helkuo, meaning to drag, perhaps an allusion to the way His hearers will later come to faith in Him. 45 It is written (grapho[G], katuv[H]) in the Prophets (Prophetes[G], Neviyim[H]), ‘And they shall all (vekulam[H]) be taught (y’lamdu[H]) of God (Elohiym[H], Theos[G]).’ For yes (Lachein[H]), everyone individually (Pas[G], kol[H]) who has heard (shama[H]) and learned (v’lamad[H]) from (min[H]) the Father (ho Pater[G], ha-Av[H]), comes to Me (yavo eilay[H]). 46 Not that anyone human (Adam[H]) has seen the Father (ho Pater[G], et ha-Av[H]), except the One Who is from the God (ho Theos[G], ha-Elohiym[H]); He (Hu[H]) has seen (ra’ah[H]) the Father (ho Theos[G]), the God (et ha-Elohiym[H]). 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ For yes, everyone individually who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone human has seen the Father, except the One Who is from the God; He has seen the Father, the God. “And no man has ascended up to the heavens, except He Who came down from the heavens, even the Son of man Who is in the heavens.” -Yochanan (John) 3:13 (Author’s translation) “It is written in the Prophets” Isaiah 54:13; Jeremiah 31:34; Micah 4:2. The Neviyim (the Prophets) is a section of the wider body of Hebrew Scripture (Tanakh) that collects the prophetic writings of God’s prophets. “And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.” - Isaiah 54:13 (KJV) “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” - Jeremiah 31:34 (KJV) “and many nations shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” -Micah 4:2 (ESV) The Zohar confines those being taught by God to the ethnic, religious, chosen people of Israel: "they are truly taught of God from whom prophecy comes, which does not to all the world, but to Israel only, of whom it is written, "and all thy children are taught of God".'' 47 Amen[H] [G]Amen[H] [G] (B’emet[H], B’emet[H]), In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I say to you, he who believes, is convinced, is persuaded, trusts, has, holds (echo[G]) eternal, perpetual, unending, life, living (zoe aionios[G], chayeiy olam[H]) [living in a perpetual world]. 47 Amen Amen, In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I say to you, he who believes, is convinced, is persuaded, trusts, has, holds eternal, perpetual, unending, life, living. As is always the case the double Amen is a testimony to the firmly established nature of that which Yeshua is about to say. Once again it is affirmed that the person who believes in Yeshua already has life unending. 48 I am, I exist, I’m present, I’m happening, I AM He (ego eimi[G], Anochiy Hu[H]) the bread (ho artos[G], ha lechem[H]) of the life, the living (ho zoe[G], hachayiym[H]). 49 Your fathers (pateros[G], avoteiychem[H]) ate the manna (manna[G], ha man[H]: “What is it?”) in the wilderness (eremos[G], bamid’bar[H]: ba[in the] mi [from] davar [Word, essence, substance]), and they died (apothnesko[G], va’amutu[H]). 50 This is the bread (ho artos[G], ha lechem[H]) which comes down (katabaino[G], hayoreid[H]) out of the heavens (ho ouranos[G], min-hashamayim[H]), so that one may eat of it and not die (me apothnesko[G], velo yamut [H]). 48 I am, I exist, I’m present, I’m happening, I AM He the bread of the life, the living. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of the heavens, so that one may eat of it and not die. Yet another “I Am” statement. The writer of John’s Gospel saturates His account with titles and figurative language pointing to the deity of Yeshua. Yeshua reminds His hearers that the manna their forebears ate was temporal, resulting in the eventual death of their ancestors. Yeshua however was born in Beit Lechem “House of Bread”, the source of all sustenance, and He is the Bread of Eternal Living. The bread that once eaten will perpetuate a person’s life. 51 I am, I exist, I’m present, I’m happening, I AM He (ego eimi [G], Anachiy[H]) the bread (ho artos[G], ha lechem[H]), the living (ho zoe[G], hachayiym[H]) that came down (katabaino[G], hayoreid[H]) out of the heavens (ho ouranos[G], min-hashamayim[H]); if anyone eats of this one specific (toutou to[G]) bread (artos[G], lechem[H]), he will live (yich’yeh[H]), breathe (zao[G]) into (eis[G]) the unbroken age (ho aion[G], le’olam[H]) into the world everlasting; and the bread (ho artos[G], ha lechem[H]) also which I will give (didomi[G], et’nenu[H]) for the life, living (zoe[G], chayeiy[H]) of the world (ho kosmos[G], ha-olam[H]) is in My flesh (sarx[G], b’shariy[H]).” 51 I am, I exist, I’m present, I’m happening, I AM He the bread, the living, that came down out of the heavens; if anyone eats of this one specific bread, he will live, breathe into the unbroken age, into the world everlasting; and the bread also which I will give for the life, living of the world is in My flesh.” “I AM, I Exist” This is the self-existing statement of God the Father (Ex. 3:14; Jn. 1:1-3; 6:20; 8:58). “if anyone eats of this one specific (toutou to[G]) bread (artos[G], lechem[H])” The Greek text is interesting, leaving no room for a general or esoteric application of the bread Who is Yeshua. “This specific Yeshua (bread)” there is no other means of eternal sustenance. Elsewhere Yochanan writes: “Yeshua said to him, I Am Ha-Derekh (the way), Ha-Emet (the truth), and Ha-Chayiym (the life, living): no one person can come to the Father, except through, by, with Me.” -Yochanan (John) 14:6 YBYV “Yeshua said to her, "I Am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will continue to live, even if he dies.” -Yochanan (John) 11:25 “he will live, breathe into the unbroken age, into the world everlasting” Notice that living and breathing are a unity. The Breath and Spirit are intrinsic and necessary. The Spirit of God is the breath of the believer Who maintains an unbroken life from the inception of belief into perpetuity. “and the bread also which I will give for the life, living of the world is in My flesh.” Some so called “Messianics” teach a disconnect between these words and the symbolism alluded to by Yeshua concerning the bread (matzah) and the wine (Kos Ge’ulah) of Pesach (Passover). They’re wrong! Unlike the synoptic Gospels Yochanan’s (John) Gospel does not allude to the symbolic use of the Pesach elements by Yeshua as pertaining to His body and blood. Therefore, the present text is an allusion to that which John does not mention elsewhere but is fundamentally important. Yeshua is saying that He will give His flesh, His human existence as a sacrifice so that those who believe might have the life eternal which He has promised. Therefore, there is an intrinsic connection between the present verse and the symbolic use of the matzot at Pesach (Passover). Yeshua is the Pesach Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world. 52 Then the Judeans, religious Jews (Ioudaios[G], Ha-Yehudiym[H]) began to argue, fighting (machomai[G]) with one another, saying, “How can this man give (didomi[G]) us His flesh (sarx[G], b’saro[H]) to eat (phago[G, le’echol[H])?” 52 Then the Judeans, religious Jews began to argue, fighting with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” “Then the Judeans, religious Jews began to argue, fighting with one another” We note that the Judean religious Jews were not in agreement over what Yeshua had said and done. Some were clearly of the opinion that there was value in Yeshua’s signs and mashaliym (parables, metaphors, allegories), while others were fiercely opposed to Yeshua’s teaching. Thus, there was an argument between the Judean religious Jews concerning what they perceived as a difficult teaching. 53 So Yeshua[H] [A] (Iesous[G] YHVH Saves) said to them, “Amen[H] [G]Amen[H] [G] (B’emet[H], B’emet[H]), In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I say (Aniy omeir[H]) to you, unless you eat (phago[G], tochlu[H]) the flesh (ho sarx[G], et b’saro[H]) of the Son of the Man, humanity (ho uihos ho anthropos[G], ben ha-Adam[H]) and drink (pino[G], ush’tiytem[H]) His blood (aima[G], et damo[H]), you have, hold (echo[G]) no life, living (zoe[G], chayiym[H]) in (en[G]) yourselves (heautou[G], Qnoma[A]: underlying substance). 53 So Yeshua said to them, “Amen Amen, In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of the Man, humanity and drink His blood, you have, hold no life, living in yourselves. “Amen Amen” This is firmly and eternally established truth. Listen, pay attention, hear, receive, understand, implement! It is not as many suppose, that Yeshua’s Jewish hearers thought He was suggesting cannibalism or pagan ritual. They were used to rabbis speaking in mashaliym (parables) and using metaphorical sayings like these. To the contrary, they considered it a hard teaching because they understood that Yeshua was saying they must live and continue to live as He lived, and that somehow He was also saying that it was possible for His very substance to be received by them and enable them to live this way. It was not difficult because it was non-kosher but because it was hyper-kosher. A similar idea is addressed by our rabbis in the Midrash Rabbah to Ecclesiastes 2:24 where the issue of food and drink in the grave is addressed: “‘The days of his life’; and that alludes to the grave. So are there food and drink in the grave that accompany a person to the grave? Of course not. Therefore, ‘food and drink’ must mean Torah and mitzvot’” -Midrash Rabah to Ecclesiastes 2:24 The point being that it was common practice for the rabbis and sages of Judaism to use figurative and metaphorical language when addressing spiritual subjects that are beyond the paradigm of the present age. In this respect Yeshua’s teaching was no different from that of a number of His contemporaries. 54 He who chews (trogo[G]) My flesh (sarx[G], b’sariy[H]) and drinks (pino[G], vehashoteh[H]) My blood (aima[G], et dami[H]) has, holds (echo[G]) eternal, perpetual, unending, life, living (zoe aionios[G], chayeiy olam[H]) [living in a perpetual world], and I (Kago[G], va’Aniy[H]) will raise him up (anistemi[G], akiymenu[H]) on the extreme last (eschatos[G]) day (hemera[G]) [bayom ha-acharon[H]]. 54 He who chews My flesh and drinks My blood has, holds eternal, perpetual, unending, life, living [living in a perpetual world], and I will raise him up on the extreme last day. The Torah instructs us that “the life of the flesh is in the blood”. Yeshua is expounding the ultimate fulfilment of this phrase from the Torah. The blood of flesh affected by sin and subject to the temporal world is inevitably destroyed but the blood of God with us (Immanuel) is sinless, and having entered the world manifest as a human being, God Himself offers His blood to humanity so that we might transcend the limitations of the fallen creation and be born from above into eternal life through Yeshua, Who is God with us. It is Yeshua’s blood that has been given upon the altar to make atonement for all who receive Him. “For the soul living of the flesh is in the blood; and Him I have given to all of you upon the altar to purge, make reconciliation upon your soul existence: for the blood, He is in the soul purging reconciliation.” -Vayikra (Leviticus) 17:11 “and I will raise him up on the extreme last day.” This phrase is completely consistent with the teaching and future hope of the P’rushiym (Pharisees). Yeshua is not alluding to anything new, He is simply illuminating the fullness of what is known and revealing its ultimate Goal, that is, Yeshua Himself (Romans 10:4). 55 For My flesh (sarx[G], b’sariy[H]) is true (alethes[G], be’emet[H]) food (brosis[G], ochel[H]), and My blood (aima[G], damiy[H]) is true (alethes[G], be’emet[H]) drink (posis[G], shikuy[H]). 56 He who chews (trogo[G], ochel[H]) My flesh (sarx[G], b’sariy[H]) and drinks (veshoteh[H]) My blood (aima[G], damiy[H]) abides, remains (meno[G], yaliyn[H]) in Me (en, biy[H]), and I (va’Aniy[H]) in him (vo[H]). 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who chews My flesh and drinks My blood abides, remains in Me, and I in him. “My flesh is true food” Here, “true” is synonymous with “indestructible”. The temporal food of the fallen creation does not qualify as “true” food because it perishes along with the body. But Yeshua’s flesh, His life, is true food and true drink because it does not perish. He is from everlasting to everlasting and is thus able to sustain all who come to God through Him. “He who chews My flesh and drinks My blood abides, remains in Me, and I in him.” Notice the present and continuous verb “trogo” (chews, chewing). The act of eating Yeshua’s sacrificial way of living, the act of continuing to feed on His character and chew on His nature, is a perpetual exercise. Receiving Him is the beginning of an eternal meal. The present and continued practice of holiness born of faith. “abides, remains in Me, and I in him.” Note that we who eat His flesh and drink His blood (metaphors) are related to Him in the same way that He is related to God. We are in Him and He is in us but we are never outside of Him. 57 Accordingly (kathos[G]) the living (ho zoe[G], hachay[H]) Father (Pater[G], ha Av[H]) sent (apostello[G], sh’lachniy[H]) Me, and I (Anochiy[H]) live, breathe (zao[G], chay[H]) through (dia[G]) of My Father (Aviy[H]) [the Father] (ho Pater[G]), so he who chews on (trogo[G], ha ochel[H]) Me, he also will live, breathe (zao[G], yich’yeh[H]) through (dia[G]) Me. 57 Accordingly the living Father sent Me, and I live, breathe through of My Father, so he who chews on Me, he also will live, breathe through Me. Once again Yeshua gives all glory back to the Father Who has given all glory to the Son. Yeshua never fails to submit His ministry to the Father. In this example we find the nature of the One Whom we seek to abide in. The life of the disciple of Yeshua is lived in, through and with Him, and this of the Father. Ultimately all life is from God. It is worth noting the very similar ideas expressed in the Talmud Bavliy: “Says Rab, the Israelites shall "eat" the years of the Messiah: says R. Joseph, it is certainly so; but who shall "eat him?" shall Chellek and Billek (two judges in Sodom) אכלי לה אכלוהו, "they ate him" in the days of Hezekiah.” -T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 2. & 99. 1. Therefore, the sages taught that sinners ate the Messiah (Metaphorically speaking) in the days of Hezekiah. This agrees with Yeshua's message of redemption from sin through the eating of His flesh (Metaphorical). In other words, only the person who admits to being a sinner can receive and benefit from Yeshua's substitutionary sacrificial blood. 58 This is the bread (ho artos[G], ha lechem[H]) which came down (katabaino[G], hayoreid[H]) out of the heavens (ho ouranos[G], min-hashamayim[H]); not as your fathers (pateros[G], avoteiychem[H]) who ate (phago[G], ochel[H]) and died (apothnesko[G], yamutu[H]); he who eats chews on (trogo[G], ochel[H]) this specific (touton ho[G]) bread (artos[G], lechem[H]) will live, breathe (zao[G], yich’yeh[H]) into (eis[G]) the (ho[G]) unbroken age (aion[G]), the world perpetual (leolam[H]).” 58 This is the bread which came down out of the heavens; not as your fathers who ate and died; he who eats chews on this specific bread will live, breathe into the unbroken age, the world perpetual.” Yeshua reaffirms the fact that He is the “True” eternal manna from the heavens which will remain, as opposed to the temporal manna of Israel’s forebears, which perished. 59 These things (devariym[H]) He (Yeshua) said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum (K’far Nachum[H]). 59 These things He (Yeshua) said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. As discussed in previous articles, K’far Nachum was the home town of Yeshua’s ministry years. Appropriately named “Village of Comfort”. 60 Therefore many of His disciples (mathetes[G], talmidim[H]), when they heard this said, “This is a hard (sleros[G], kasheh[H]) word (logos[G], ha-davar[H]); who is able (dunamai[G]) to hear it (akouo[G], lish’ma[H])?” 60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a hard word; who is able to hear it?” Take careful note that these are His disciples (not the twelve but the wider following), and not the Judean religious Jews (though some of them may be included). Therefore, it is those who have been following Yeshua who have decided that what He is saying is too hard to accept (which is what “hear” infers). Let me repeat, it is not as many suppose, that Yeshua’s Jewish hearers thought He was suggesting cannibalism or pagan ritual. They were used to rabbis speaking in mashaliym (parables) and using metaphorical sayings like these. To the contrary, they considered it a hard teaching because they understood that Yeshua was saying they must live and continue to live as He lived, and that somehow He was also saying that it was possible for His very substance to be received by them and enable them to live this way. It was not difficult because it was non-kosher but because it was hyper-kosher. “This is a hard word” A hard word or case is one that is difficult to discern by using common sense. The Torah alludes to this very thing in regard to the judgements of Moses: “And they judged the people at all times. Any hard case they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves.” -Exodus 18:26 (ESV) The point is that Yeshua the “Prophet” like Moses, is the One Who must be looked to in order for this “hard word” to be adjudicated. In rabbinical Judaism the phrase “hard saying (word)” is used in the same way: מה הדבר קשה, "is this an hard saying with you?"'' -Mishnah. Nidda, c. 8, sect. 3. 61 But Yeshua[H, A] (Iesous[G], YHVH Saves, Jesus, Joshua), seeing, discerning, perceiving (eido[G]) that His disciples (mathetes[G], talmidim[H]) muttered, grumbled, spoke in hushed tones (gogguzo[G]) at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble (skandalizo[G], l’mich’shol[H])? 61 But Yeshua, seeing, discerning, perceiving that His disciples muttered, grumbled, spoke in hushed tones at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? The wider body of disciples had fallen into the same disbelieving and rude behaviour of those who had been confronting Yeshua. Therefore, Yeshua gives them an opportunity to repent. Put simply He is saying, “Will you choose to walk in the light of My teaching, even when it’s hard, or will you choose to stumble over My teaching like those walking in darkness?” 62 What then if you become spectators watching (theoreo[G]) the Son (ho uihos[G]) of Man (anthropos[G]) [ben ha-Adam[H]] ascending (anabaino[G], oleh[H]) to where He was before (proteron[G])? 62 What then if you become spectators watching the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? Yeshua qualifies His challenge by pointing out that “harder things (devariym, from Davar)” are yet to come, such as the death and resurrection of the Son of Man and His ascension to the Father in the heavens. In other words, “If you can’t navigate the present teaching how will you make sense of the ultimate fulfilment of it?” 63 It is the Spirit (ho pneuma[G], ha-Ruach[H]) Who gives (hanotein[H]) living (chayiym[H]), bears living (zoopoieo[G]); the flesh (ho sarx[G], ha-basar[H]) profits nothing; the words, substance, essence, spoken things (ho rhema[G], hadevariym[H]) that I have spoken to you are Spirit (pneuma[G], ruach[H]) and are living (zoe[G], chayiym[H]). 64 But there are some of you who do not believe, trust (ya’amiynu[H]).” For Yeshua knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe (ma’amiyniym[H]), and who His betrayer (ha-moseir[H]) would be. 63 It is the Spirit Who gives living, bears living; the flesh profits nothing; the words, substance, essence, spoken things that I have spoken to you are Spirit and are living. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe, trust.” For Yeshua knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who His betrayer would be. “It is the Spirit Who gives birth to life” This is an allusion to the beginning of creation and the Spirit of God brooding over the deep. This illuminates the phrase “Yeshua knew from the beginning… who His betrayer would be.” It is not a spirit but the Spirit of God Who gives life. “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God hovered, brooded, nurtured upon the face of the waters.” -Bereishit (Genesis) 1:2 “the flesh profits nothing” This is not a Gnostic teaching as some suppose, it does not mean that all physical things are “evil”. Flesh here refers specifically to the sin affected flesh of fallen humanity. Because the fallen nature and its flesh will perish the specific form of flesh in question profits nothing. “the words, substance, essence, spoken things that I have spoken to you are Spirit and are living.” The word of Yeshua is of the same Spirit Who brooded over creation and are therefore perpetual and living, never perishing. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one is able to (dunamai[G]) come to Me unless it has been given (didomi[G]) him from the Father (ho Pater[G], ha Av[H]).” 66 As a result of this many of His disciples (mathetes[G], talmidim[H]) withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one is able to come to Me unless it has been given him from the Father.” 66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. Yeshua’s words may have seemed overly harsh to those who had been following Him so faithfully for so long. However, Yeshua was intentionally weeding out those who would fail to perpetuate faith in Him. Many believers today choose to be offended by the hard teaching of some, not because the teaching is error but because it has exposed their sin and challenged them to pursue a deeper faith. 67 So Yeshua said to the twelve, “You don’t want to go away also, do you?” 68 Shimon[H] (Hears God) Kefa[H] (Peter: Rock) answered Him, “Lord (Kurios[G], Adoniy[H]), to whom shall we go? You have words, utterances, spoken things (rhema[G], divreiy[H]) of eternal living (zoe aionios[G], chayeiy olam[H]). 67 So Yeshua said to the twelve, “You don’t want to go away also, do you?” 68 Shimon Kefa answered Him, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have words, utterances, spoken things of eternal living. Peter, is speaking on behalf of the twelve, note that He says “to whom shall we go?” He responds to Yeshua in humility. Peter is not saying that He or the twelve are finding Yeshua’s words “easy”, to the contrary, they too are finding Yeshua’s teaching “hard”, rather Peter is saying, “We know you, we trust Your character, we see Your nature, we are witness to Your sinless life, Your teaching is difficult to receive but it’s Your teaching which we believe is from God, so, to whom will we go but You? You are speaking eternity into our temporal existence.” Where the many disciples who left Yeshua failed through pride, Peter and the twelve remained through humility. They too found Yeshua’s teaching hard, but rather than allow their own inability to understand guide their decision making they instead chose to trust in Yeshua, His nature, character and His relationship with them. Like the disciples of Yeshua we too must learn that the person of Yeshua, the person of God is our certain secure peace, and not temporal things, events or circumstances. The hard things that come from God are worthwhile because they pierce and illuminate the complacent ease of the darkness. We don’t receive the hard things because they are hard but because they are from God. 69 We have believed, are convinced, trust (pisteuo[G]) and have come to learn, know (ginosko[G]) that You are the most Holy (hagios[G], k’dosh[H]) One of the God (ho Theos[G], ha Elohiym[H]).” 69 We have believed, are convinced, trust and have come to learn, know that You are the most Holy One of the God.” Peter echoes the sentiment held by the twelve. They have come to know Yeshua’s person, His character, and the testimony of His deeds, and they are convinced that He is the promised holy One of God. 70 Yeshua answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a slanderer, accuser (diabolos[G], satan[H])?” 70 Yeshua answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a slanderer, accuser?” Yeshua chose His own betrayer. God is in control of all things. To have security in the storm is to know that God is in the storm. Both the Hebrew satan and Greek diabolos mean slanderer or accuser. Neither word is a noun unless qualified and if qualified by the definite article “The”, each word refers to that individual “the Satan”. In the present case the text is speaking of an accuser, Yehudah the disciple. He is not “the Satan”, he is an accuser (satan). 71 Now He meant Yehudah[H] (Judah, Judas) the son of Shimon Iysh k’riyot (Simon a man of the town), for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him. 71 Now He meant Yehudah the son of Shimon Iysh k’riyot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him. It is sadly ironic that the King born of Yehudah is to be betrayed by Yehudah from the tribe of Yehudah. Yehudah was the son of a man from the village of K’riyot. It is interesting to note that in modern Hebrew K’riyot means “collisions” or “crashes”. So the name of Judas Iscariot meant Praise the son of a man of collisions. Copyright Yaakov Brown 2020 Water into Wine (John 2:1-11):
Introduction: The wedding in Cana and the miraculous sign of the water being turned to wine appears at first glance to be a party trick, a fanciful form of entertainment, and for those who detest wine and prefer an unfermented faith, a miracle of water into grape juice, albeit a far less miraculous transformation. However, Yeshua is no magician, nor is He a performer or a people pleaser, and both the Greek and Hebrew words for wine mean fermented grape juice, that is, alcohol. So what is this miracle all about? After all, one would think that Yeshua’s first recorded miracle would carry some significance outside of “Wow, we haven’t seen that done before”. In fact, the miracle of water to wine has deep significance beyond the plain action described in the text of the Gospel of Yochanan. It links Yeshua to creation itself, to the miraculous work of Moses, and symbolically reveals Yeshua’s vicarious, sacrificial blood. All this, at a wedding banquet that prefigures that great wedding banquet at the end of the age, the wedding supper (Rev. 19:7, 9) of the “Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world” (John. 1:29). Joh 2:1 And in the day, the third (uvayom hashliyshiy[H]) there was a marriage festival (gamos[G]Chatunah[H]) beginning (ginomai[G], haytah[H]) in Cana (Kana[G], Qanah [H], reeds) of Galilee (Ho-Galilaia[G] circuit, Yam Ha-Kineret[H] Lake of the harp, [region]); and the mother (meter[G], eim[H]) of the (tos[G]) Yeshua[H] [A] (Iesous[G] YHVH Saves) was in that place (ekei[G]): NB: Cana is approximately 7.9 km north of Nazareth. This would have been approximately 1 ½ hours walk. Yeshua spent His middle years in Nazareth. “Cana of Galilee” Is a town assigned to the tribe of Asher (Joshua 19:28). Cana meaning reeds and Asher meaning Happiness. “In the third day” (uvayom hashliyshiy), could refer either to the third day following the day that the disciples of John (the Immerser) first meet Yeshua, or to the third day of a week, that being comparable to Tuesday in the modern western calendar. It is also a figurative prophetic reference to the resurrection of the King Messiah Yeshua. If it refers to the third day of the Hebrew week, there is a significant inference. The third day of the week is that day of the created order where “God saw that it was good” twice (Genesis 1:10, 12). As a result it is thought to be a day of twofold blessing. The Hebrew chatunah (Marriage) is interesting in that the Hebrew groom, chatan having been joined by the Hebrew bride kalah (arusah, betrothed), enters a binding commitment of love that is named by a feminine form of the masculine noun chatan (groom), that being chatunah. In other words, the bride joins with the groom and takes on his character. “The mother of” Yeshua’s mother Miriyam (Mary) is never mentioned by name in the Gospel of Yochanan (John). It seems that Yochanan shares his sense of intimate connection to Yeshua with his understanding of Yeshua’s special connection to His mother. It is to Miriyam that Yeshua says “Woman here is your son” and to Yochanan He says “Here is your mother”. “25 Near the execution tree of Yeshua stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Yeshua saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Precious Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.” -John 19:25-27 Thus, those whom the author sees in this way need not be mentioned by name because they are known to the intimate circle of his audience. This is still further evidence that this gospel was initially intended for a Jewish audience and only by extension to the gentiles being saved throughout the Roman empire of the latter first century CE (AD). “The Yeshua” It is interesting to note that while the more recent Hebrew text available does not have the definite article in conjunction with Yeshua’s name, both the Greek and Aramaic texts do. Meaning that the Jewish author, writing in Greek, clearly intended that this Yeshua be seen as exceptional. Thus, “And the mother of the Yeshua was in that place”. Keeping in mind that Joshua (Yeshua, Yehoshua) was an extremely common Jewish name in the first century CE (AD). Therefore, there may well have been several of the 1200 guests who were named Yeshua (Yehoshua, Joshua). Marriage in Judea and Galilee in the first century CE (AD): There were some differences between the Jewish marriage customs of Judea and the Galilee during the first century CE (AD). Religious laws were codified in order to establish correct practise for Jews living in the land at that time. "There are three countries (regions), for the celebration of marriages; Judea, the country beyond Jordan, and Galilee;'' -Misn. Cetubot, c. 13. sect. 10. T. Hieros. Cetubot, fol. 36. 2. Therefore, these three distinct tribal regions of Jews were obligated by Jewish religious law to marry among themselves. If a member of one group married a woman from outside of the group she was not obliged to leave her region and go with him. This is consistent with the Torah requirements regarding the passing on of land as an inheritance to the respective tribes. "They do not bring them out from city to city, (i.e. oblige them to go with them from city to city,) nor from town to town; but in the same country they bring them out from city to city, and from town to town.'' -Bartenora in ib. "In Judea, at first, they joined the bridegroom and bride together an hour before they went into the bride chamber, that so his heart might be lifted up in her; but in Galilee they did not do so: in Judea, at first, they appointed for them two companions, one for him, and another for her, that they might minister to, or wait on the bridegroom, and bride, when they went into the bride chamber; but in Galilee they did not do so: in Judea, at first, the companions slept in the house where the bridegroom and bride slept; but in Galilee they did not do so.'' -Talmud. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 12. 1. Joh 2:2 And both Yeshua[H] and His disciples (mathetes[G] [pupils], talmidim[H] [religious students, followers]) were called by name (kaleo[G]) to the marriage festival (gamos[G]Chatunah[H]). The Greek “kaleo” denotes the receipt of a person by name, and or the receiving of the person’s name and identity. A deep form of welcome that infers either familial relationship or close friendship. Therefore, it is likely that the families who were celebrating this wedding knew Yeshua and His disciples personally. They were either related to Miriyam (Mary) or Yosef (Joseph) [now deceased] or were close friends of the family. Certainly, at very least Yeshua was known to the family through His mother and thus His disciples would have been invited in connection to their newly found spiritual teacher and Rabbi. “Yeshua and His disciples” These being Andrew, and the John (other disciple, not John the Baptist), who followed Yeshua, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael, all of whom were from the Galilee region. Therefore, five of Yeshua’s disciples were present along with His mother and brothers, Yaakov (James), Yosef (Joseph), Yehudah (Judah) and Shimon (Simon) [Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55-56]. Including Yeshua this makes a total of ten free Jewish men present. Ten being a number of fullness and completion, wholeness and restoration, renewal and well-being. This is significant given that according to Jewish Law 10 free Jewish men (a minyan) were required to be present at the blessing of a bridegroom. “They do not bless the blessing of bridegrooms, but with ten principal and free men; and the bridegroom may be one of the number.” -Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 10. sect. 5. Pirke Eliezer, c. 19. Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 9. 3. Aside from the plan circumstances in which Yeshua was a guest and not the bridegroom, we non the less note that figuratively speaking the bridegroom of the body of believers (Yeshua) was among their number. Joh 2:3 And when they were behind in the supply of (hustereo[G]) wine (oinos[G], yiyn[H]) the mother of the (tos[G]) Yeshua[H] [A] said to Him, “They have no wine.” The Greek “oinos” is yet another Hebrew/Aramaic transliteration into Greek. The Hebrew word is “yiyn” and is used to describe the fermented juice of grapes. Wine is a symbol of blessing in both ancient and modern Judaism, thus a lack of wine is symbolic of a lack of blessing or is otherwise seen as a sign that the blessing has run out. Whatever role Yeshua’s mother played at the wedding banquet, she is almost certainly serving as a direct aid to the banquet master, who was likely a close relative. There is a beautiful correlation here. Miriyam is servant both to the banquet master of this wedding and to her own Son Yeshua, the Son of the banquet Master of creation (YHVH). Just as she serves, so she offers Yeshua and opportunity to reveal His service. He is after all the Servant King Messiah (Isa. 53). In this ancient Jewish cultural setting it would have been seen as a disgrace to the families of both bride and groom had the wine run out before the festivities had been concluded. Therefore, the remedying of this situation was of great importance to Miriyam (Mary). Joh 2:4 The (Ho[G]) Yeshua[H] [A] said to her, “What have I to do with your doings (soi[G]) precious woman (gune[G])? [Alt. Hebrew reading: mah-liy valach ishah[H] What of Me and to/for you woman?] My hour, season, time (hora[G]) is not yet arrived (heko[G]) [Alt. Hebrew reading: itiy adayin lo-ba’ah[H] With Me what is yet to be is not come.” The Greek gune in this context refers specifically to a woman relative, wife, betrothed, mother etc. “Precious woman” is a phrase used throughout the Gospel of John as a precursor to a revelation to those women dear to the heart of the Messiah (4:21; 19:26; 20:13,15). “What have I to do with your doings precious woman?” This is a Hebrew idiom from the Tanakh which has been translated into Greek in order to convey a uniquely Hebrew perspective. It is clear that the author knew his primary readers (Jews) would understand it without explanation, and he intentionally fails to clarify its meaning for any later gentile readers. This is because some of the food of the gospel is first and foremost for the children of Israel (Jews, ethnic, religious, empirical, chosen) [Matt.15:26]. The phrase in question is used throughout the Tanakh in different contexts to mean, “What do we have in common?”, “Why are you involving me?”, “Don’t tell me what to do!”, “Why are you turning to me?”, “Your concern is not my concern.” In this case the idiom is employed as a gentle rebuke that seeks to illuminate for Miriyam the importance of Yeshua’s timely revelation of His manifest glory and ultimate goal. None the less, HaShem (YHVH) had always intended for this to be Yeshua’s first miraculous sign, and Yeshua knew this. He did not give in to His mother’s request as some foolishly suggest, rather He helped His mother understand the true significance of her request. Thus Yeshua obeys the will of His Father (YHVH) and proceeds to do what He had always intended to do. “With Me what is yet to be is not come.” Meaning, “The full revelation of my redeeming work and identity awaits its perfect timing.” Therefore, while Miriyam was hoping for Yeshua to be fully recognised for Who He truly was on the occasion of this wedding, He was making sure she understood that His actions at the wedding would be a mitigated revelation that would point to the perfect hour (time) of His vicarious death and resurrection unto glory, resulting in eternal life for all who would receive Him. Joh 2:5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” This is one line of motherly advice that every believer should take heed of. Miriyam was approximately 44 years old at the time of these events. Miriyam’s response to Yeshua’s gentle rebuke is one of submission, respect and honour. A carnal mother would have rebuked her son and said to him, “Do as I say” but Miriyam the mother of Yeshua is a devote worshipper and lover of God. Thus she turns to the servants and says, “Do whatever He says”. We note that Yeshua’s mother Miriyam (Mary), who had treasured in her heart that which she had understood of His identity, none the less, does not respond. Rather, like a Yiddish momma, she simply turns to the servants and directs them to obey her son. In doing so Miriyam shows that she understands that while Yeshua’s time of sacrificial death (Luke 2:19, 34-25, 51-52) has not yet come, His time to launch his miraculous ministry has. We must remember that when Yosef (Joseph) and Miriyam had brought the new-born Yeshua to the Temple for consecration, the righteous man Simeon had spoken directly to Miriyam about Yeshua’s destiny: “Then Shimeon blessed them and said to Miriyam, his mother: ‘This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.’” -Luke 2:34-35 Miriyam had listened to and watched Yeshua grow and treasured both Him and His role as redeemer of Israel (Luke 2:19, 51-52). Therefore, the account of her conversation at the wedding in Cana does not show that she misunderstands Yeshua’s appointed time, to the contrary, her response shows that she understands perfectly and in spite of what she knows will lead to her own great loss, she none the less makes it possible for the people of Israel to begin to understand the fullness of God’s purpose of redemption made manifest in Yeshua, her precious, beloved and treasured son. Joh 2:6 And there were set in that place (ekei[G]) six stone (lithinos[G]) water vessels (hudria[G], kadeiy-even[H]), according to the purification, cleansing, washing rituals, judgements, regulations (mishpat[H]) of the (Ho[G]) Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Ha-Yehudiym[H]) each capable of containing 75 to 115 litres. According to Jewish tradition stone jars can be cleansed if made impure but jars made of clay must be destroyed (Lev.6:28; 11:33). It is interesting to note that stone vessels of this kind have been found in a quarry near Nazareth which dates to the first century CE. Additionally, the Greek word tekton, which is translated carpenter in most English Bibles can refer to any kind of labourer, craftsman, or artisan, including a stone mason. Therefore, it is quite possible that both Yosef (Yeshua’s father) and Yeshua (initially as apprentice to His father) were in fact stone masons (Matt.13:55; Mark.6:3). Thus, Yeshua Himself may have made the stone vessels that were present at this wedding in Cana, at the quarry outside of Nazareth, where He spent the majority of His pre-ministry years. “Six stone water vessels” Stone (earth) and water, the elements present at the beginning of creation (Gen.1:1) are present in the six stone vessels, which are themselves representative of the six days of creation. Therefore, figuratively speaking Yeshua as the Creative Word (John 1:1) begins the ministry that will bring about a renewed creation with a sign that speaks of how the renewed creation will come about. That is, through the shed blood of the King Messiah. “According to the purification, rituals, of the Judeans” Refers to Judeans by religion as opposed to Judeans by location or ethnicity, although, for the most part those who were Judean by ethnicity were also at least under the religious instruction of the Judean religious authorities in Jerusalem. The Galileans, who were Jewish by ethnicity but did not necessarily keep all the same sectarian rituals as the Judeans, had none the less provided for the religious rites of their fellow Jews from Judea and may share some of those rites with their brothers and sisters. The ritual washing vessels in this case were most likely used for the washing before meals, a tradition that makes its way through history to the modern rabbinical practise of Netilat Yadaiym (The cleansing of the hands). This practise is likely very similar in form to that of the first century CE (AD) practise. What this tells us is that the wedding was attended by Jews from both Galilee and Judea and that the couple, contrary to extrabiblical Jewish legal custom, may have been a mixed Jewish couple, one Galilean (Of Asher – Cana) and one Judean (Of Judah). “Each capable of containing 75 to 115 litres” In total the six jars were capable of holding approximately 600 litres of water. If we estimate that each guest used the 300 – 500 millilitres of water necessary to perform Netilat Yadayim, we can safely say that there were a minimum of 1200 guests at the wedding. It is no wonder then that there was a wine shortage. Joh 2:7 The (O[G]) Yeshua[H] [A] said to them, “Fill entirely (gemizo[G]) the water jars (hudria[G]) with water (mayim[H]).” And they filled them entirely, up to the brim.” In order for something to be filled it must first be emptied. This means that those attending the wedding festival were devout Judean Jews and observant Jews from the Galilee and Nazareth, many of whom had performed ritual washing (Netilat Yadayim) using the water in the stone vessels before eating at the wedding feast. This filling is figurative of the fresh living water that Yeshua would fill creation with (John 4:14). We note that this sign is given following the account of John the Immerser (John 1:33) speaking of the Messiah bringing a tevilah (Immersion, baptism) in the Spirit that perfects the tevilah (Immersion) of water. Both the beginning of creation and the beginning of Yeshua’s miraculous signs allude to the mikveh (gathering of waters, immersion pool), and to tevilah (immersion). Joh 2:8 And He said to them, “Draw out now (nun[G]), and carry (phero[G]) it to the master, the great one (architriklinos[G], el-Rav[H]) of the feast.” And they carried it. “Draw out now” No sooner had the vessels been filled with fresh water, that they were straight away poured into wine jugs and transported to the master of the banquet. This miraculous sign happened instantaneously, in the same way that the Nile had been turned red by the command of Moses. We note that Yeshua made a presentation to the lord of the feast, of the fine wine that had resulted from His work. This is of course figurative of the presenting of His own blood before the Lord of All things (YHVH). “The great one of the feast” The Greek architriklinos (Master of Festivities) is a compound title made up of three words: arche meaning beginning, origin, tria meaning three, and klino meaning to recline, rest, the declining of the day. It is a description of a dinner bed, or three couches connected and used for feasting and thus becomes a noun describing the master of ceremonies at a banquet. However, it is also a figure for the unity of God, Who begins all things (arche), is three and One (tria), and Who offers rest and reclining at the declining of time, to all who receive His Son (klino). Interestingly, the Hebrew text calls the master of the feast “El-Rav” The Great One”, Rav being the root for Rabbi. Joh 2:9 When the master, the great one (architriklinos[G], el-Rav[H]) of the feast had tasted the water (hudatos[G], mayim[H]) it had become wine (oinos[G], yiyn[H]), and he had not seen the place it had come from: (but the servants who drew the water knew;) thus, the great one (architriklinos[G], el-Rav[H]) of the feast called the bridegroom (numphios[G], chatan[H]) It is impossible to think of a modern scientific explanation for this miraculous sign. Water does not become wine through any instantaneous process, nor is it feasible to suggest that this was simply diluted wine made from some deposit of wine in the base of the jars because the master of the banquet himself states that it is the best of wines, a fine, full bodied wine incomparable to the weaker wines served up to that point. We note that only Yeshua’s mother (who possibly told His brothers and relatives), the disciples with Him and the servants, knew what had taken place at this point. Metaphorically speaking there is a miracle (sign) that only the servants, followers, and relatives of Yeshua know, that being the salvation that comes through His vicarious death and miraculous resurrection. To others the wonderful transformation of those being saved is seen publicly as the “finest wine” which is saved for last. While still others are not even invited to the Wedding Banquet. “The great one of the feast called the bridegroom” The bridegroom would have been seated with the bride in a prominent place. Therefore, the calling out of the bridegroom would have been seen by all. Figuratively, Yeshua is called by the Father to be honoured before all creation. Joh 2:10 And said to him (bridegroom), “Every (individual) man (human being) first sets out the excellent, precious, surpassingly good (kalos[G], ha-tov[H]) wine (oinos[G], yiyn[H]); and when people have become drunk (methuo[G]), then that which is worse (elasson[G]): but you have taken care, attended to matters carefully, reserved, kept (tereo[G]) the excellent, precious, surpassingly good (kalos[G] ha-tov[H]) wine (oinos[G], yiyn[H]) until this moment (arti[G]).” Yeshua’s first sign prophetically prefigures the unsurpassable value of the last sign of His earthly ministry, that being His death and resurrection. We note that the bridegroom had no idea of what had taken place (at least, not at this point). “Every man first sets out the good wine; and when people have become drunk, then that which is worse” A drunk man cannot appreciate the fine qualities of superior wine. Therefore, common sense dictates that the good wine should be served first at a time in proceedings when it can be appreciated, and later, for those who have drunk too much, the cheap wine is served. “but you have taken care, reserving the good wine until this moment” Yeshua has produced the best wine last for a reason. The fact that the wine had run out indicates that many of the guests must have been over drinking, many, but not all. Those who had become drunk would now be given the fine wine produced by Yeshua but would be unable to appreciate it, while those who had been drinking responsibly would have been free to enjoy the superior wine to the fullest. Based on his assessment of the wine we know that the master of the banquet was one who had drunk responsibly. Likewise Yeshua’s mother and disciples. It is also possible that the servants who had not been drinking but serving, were later afforded the opportunity to drink of the fine wine, not having indulged in irresponsible drinking because of their commitment to service. Therefore, we conclude that the wine was appreciated by the sober but went unnoticed by the drunk. This is a figure for the Gospel, where the blood of Messiah is received as the sweet fragrance of salvation to those being saved and as the stench of death to those being lost (2 Corinthians 2:14-16). Joh 2:11 This beginning, origin, first (arche[G], reishiyt[H]) of (O[G]) the signs, wonders, miracles (semeion[G], ha-otot[H]) Yeshua[H] [A] did in Cana (Kana[G], Qanah [H], reeds) of Galilee (Ho-Galilaia[G] [circuit], Yam Ha-Kineret[H] Lake of the harp, [region]), and manifested, made known, made visible (phaneroo[G]) His glory, splendour, brightness, opinion, judgement, view (doxa[G], kevodo[H]); and His disciples, religious students, followers (mathetes[G], talmidim[H]) believed, had faith, trusted, were persuaded, accepted the truth (pisteuo[G], ya’amiynu[H]) in/on Him. “This beginning, origin, first of the signs, wonders, miracles” The Greek “semeion” (miracle) equates to the Hebrew “ot” which is the same word used to describe the signs and wonders that God performed for Israel through Moses and the prophets. This was the first of seven miraculous signs that each showed how the created order submitted to the authority of Yeshua (2:1-11; 4:43-54; 5:1-9; 6:1-5; 9:1-41; 11:1-44), the seventh sign showing Yeshua’s authority over the grave. Additionally the turning of the water to wine at Cana is the first of a total of 37 public signs (miracles) which are recorded in the gospels. We add to these: 1. the miraculous birth of Yeshua, 2. the sign of His death on the tree, and 3. His miraculous resurrection and we come to the sum 40, a number symbolizing fullness and new beginning. A number closely associated with the prophet Moses. By turning the water into wine Yeshua emulated the first public sign (miracle, plague) performed by Moses via his proxy Aaron (Moses brother), that being the turning of the waters of the Nile to blood (Exodus 7:19-20). We note that this first public sign of Moses (Following the consuming of Pharaoh’s snakes) began the 10 plagues against Egypt (Double Distress) and was the beginning of Israel’s journey to freedom through the blood of the Passover Lamb. Thus, Yeshua showed Himself to be the One Who Moses had prophesied would come: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.” -Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (NIV) The first public sign of Moses was a plague, the first public sign of Yeshua was a symbol of redemption and healing from the greatest of plagues (sin and death). The Torah brought the indictment against sin, the vicarious sacrifice of the Author of the Torah (Yeshua) brings atonement and freedom from the indictment of the Torah (cf. John 1:17). Both the first sign of Moses and the first sign of Yeshua were the inauguration of a process that would lead to the death of the first born. In the case of Moses, to the death of the firstborn of Egypt (double distress), and in the case of Yeshua, the death of the First Born Son of God Himself. The former being the means of physical freedom, the latter being the means of eternal metaphysical freedom. If we are not to be judged we have no need of salvation. Therefore, judgement is necessary in order to qualify redemption. Where Moses’ miraculous sign brought judgement against the enemies of God, Yeshua’s sign prophesied the means by which the enemies of God might be redeemed. And, just as the Passover Lamb delivered Israel from physical slavery, so too the “Lamb of God” would deliver Israel from spiritual slavery. It is no coincidence therefore, that the following verses of John 2 (v.13) speak of the Passover, for that is exactly what this first miraculous sign of Yeshua was pointing toward. In summation, the miracle of the water turned to wine uses the symbolism of creation and the first public miracle (sign) of Moses to present to Israel the One (Yeshua) Who brings the redemptive means by which the sin affected creation can be cleansed and reborn as a new creation.
John’s gospel began by illuminating the creative Word of God Yeshua and continued through chapter one to allude to the Immerser Yochanan, whose immersion (ritual washing) is one of repentance. Now in the opening account of chapter two, in the miracle (sign) of the wedding at Cana we see the creative Word (Yeshua) of God present at a wedding festival. We see six stone jars, which, unlike clay kilned jars, are not of man-made material (Yeshua may well have literally made the stone vessels present at the wedding at Cana). We recall the stone (rock) which is cut out and will destroy the wicked kingdoms of humanity, establishing His rule over all things, as referenced to the prophetic dream of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:34, 44-45).The six jars are the six days of creation and the stone (rock, earth) and water are the base elements of the created order of our world (Genesis 1:1-2). Therefore, the Word (Creative voice of God, Yeshua), Who was in the beginning with God (John 1:1) commands that the stone jars be filled to the brim with water on the third day (v.1), and in stone and water He creates wine, just as God created the grape vines on the third day (Gen. 1:10-13) following the creation of the Cosmos, heavens, earth and water, and prior to the creation of humanity. The water from the jars for ritual cleansing had been used to purify the body but could never purify the soul, spirit, conscience, being. Yeshua fills the same jars with new water, His living water, and turns the notion of temporary purification (physical washing) into a symbol for the blood (wine) that will bring a cleansing which will rid the soul, spirit, conscience, being of impurity forever. That is, the blood of His own vicarious, sacrificial death, shed for many. This wine (blood) is presented before the Master (God the Father) of the wedding Banquet (Of the Lamb) and it is The Master (YHVH) Who says of this wine (blood), “you’ve saved the best for last”, in other words, the temporary blood (wine) of animal sacrifice and the temporary cleansing of water is now eclipsed by the all sufficient blood (wine) of the Messiah Yeshua, Who perpetually pours out the mayim Chayim living waters of His life into the lives of others. Yeshua Makes a Whip (John 2:12-25): Joh 2:12 After this He (Yeshua) went down to Kafar Nachum[H] (Village [atonement] of comfort Capernaum), He, and His mother (meter[G], eim[H]), and his brethren (adelphos[G], echayn [achim] [H]) and His disciples, religious students, followers (mathetes[G], talmidim[H]): and they continued there for only a few days. Capernaum is not south (down) of Cana, rather it is “down” in the sense of terrain. NB: Capernaum is 38 km north-east of Cana and is known as the town of both Peter and Yeshua. It would have been approximately 7 ½ hours walk from Capernaum to Cana. Yeshua was born in Bethlehem, brought up in Nazareth and He preached in Jerusalem but spent the majority of His time during His public ministry years in Capernaum. It is thought that when the Bible speaks of Yeshua’s “own city”, it is referring to Capernaum (Matt. 9:1). It is interesting to note that the Comforter (Yeshua) spent much of His public ministry living in the village of comfort (K’far Nachum). We note now for the second time that Yeshua’s earthly father (step father as it were) is not present with His mother and the family. It is highly unlikely that Joseph (being a righteous man) had divorced his wife (or we would hear of it elsewhere), therefore, it seems that between the age of 12 (Luke 2:41-52) and the beginning of Yeshua’s public ministry (age 30) His earthly father Joseph had passed away. Joh 2:13 And the Holy convocation of the Passover (Pascha[G], Chag ha-Pesach[H]) of (Ho[G]) the (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) Judeans was at hand (eggus[G]), and Yeshua[H][A] went up upon, made aliyah (anabaino[G], vaya’al[H]) to Jerusalem (Yerushalayim[H]: Flood/Downpour of Peace and wholeness), NB: Jerusalem is 163 km south-west of Capernaum. This would have been approximately 35 hours walk, or a day and a half’s journey. “The Passover of the Judeans” means that it was the Passover sacrifice performed according to the Temple rites upon the Temple altar as commanded by God for when Israel entered the land of Israel (The Temple being in Jerusalem of Judah). Prior to Israel’s entry to the land the Passover sacrifice was made outside of Israel and the Temple mount. The Samaritans practiced the Passover sacrifice (in direct violation of Torah) on Mt Gerizim. An issue that Yeshua addressed directly with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:4-42). The Passover of the Judeans also infers a practice that had additional customs associated with the Biblical command, customs that the Judean religious leaders had added. Regardless, Yeshua came to share in the Passover observance in Jerusalem along with all those Jews from throughout the known world who regularly made Aliyah for the Regalim (three going up festivals: Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot). Regalim is from the Hebrew root “rega” meaning to wait, thus these festivals were known as the three times when all Israel waited on the Lord together in His Holy City Jerusalem, where He had placed His Name. It is no coincidence that the miracle of the water to wine occurs directly prior to the sacrifice of the Passover, which is the very thing that the symbolism of the miracle reveals. Therefore, having been called the “Lamb of God Who takes away the offence of the world” and having shown how His blood would become the finest wine of redemption, Yeshua now goes up to Jerusalem to the Passover celebration that has prefigured His coming for millennia. Joh 2:14 And came upon, found, discovered (heurisko[G]) in (en[G]) the temple (hieron[G], vamikdash[H]) salesmen, barterers (poleo[G]) that sold oxen and sheep and doves (yonah[H]), and the money brokers (kermatistes[G], porteiy ha-kesef[H]) sitting in fixed abode (kathemai[G], yoshviym sham[H]): This same incident is recorded in Matthew 21:12-27, Mark 11:12-17, and Luke 19:45-20:8 where the emphasis differs slightly. In John’s account Yeshua emphasises the need for the temple to be purified so that His own Jewish people might worship God in purity. Thus the author quotes Psalm 69:9. This makes sense, given that the author of the Gospel According to John sees the Jews as his primary audience. Whereas, the focus of Mark’s Gospel for example, is on rebuking the false witness that these practices exhibit to the nations. Therefore, the author of Mark’s Gospel quotes a different verse from the Tanakh (OT), “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’ (Isaiah 56:7). But you have made it a den of robbers (Jeremiah 7:11).” While the accounts are very similar the overturning of the tables is recorded at the end of Yeshua’s ministry in the other gospels rather than at the beginning as in the present text. This means that Yochanan the author of the Gospel According to John, either changed the chronology to suit his narrative and theme, or, more likely, that Yeshua turned over the trading tables in the Temple a second time in the latter days of His ministry. This is consistent with the fact that the accounts of the synoptic Gospels are thematically different from that of John. Therefore, when He first turned over the tables Yeshua was showing Israel (ethnic, religious, empirical, chosen) the need for the purification of the temple, whereas, nearing the end of His ministry He placed the emphasis on how the apostate worship of Israel was causing the nations to stumble. It is interesting to note that the Mark 11:12-17 account has Yeshua cursing the fig tree prior to the events that took place in the temple courts. Later that fig tree had withered. We recall that Nathanael had been called from under the fig tree which represented the place of Torah study and the fruitfulness that should come from it, however, there were those who taught in the seat of authority who had made the fig tree (metaphorically) fruitless. Unlike Nathanael, who was “A true Israelite in whom there is no deceit”, many of the Torah scholars and teachers among the Judean religious leadership had made their fig trees fruitless through teaching “the rules of men”, and thus were cursed by Yeshua so that the tree of their false teaching might not bear fruit in the future. “In the Mikdash (temple)” means inside the temple area itself, and does not refer to the outer court of the gentiles which is not considered part of the temple proper (Yet further proof that this is a separate, earlier event of similar nature). The selling and bartering of religious goods is most likely to have occurred in the court of the men of Israel which is located just prior to the court of the priests where the sacrifices are offered on the altar. Based on the Greek text we can deduce that the sellers and money changers had fixed abodes there. Simply put, they weren’t coming and going, rather they had set up semi-permanent tables and booths from which they sold their merchandise, changed money for interest into the temple shekel, and generally profited from those who had come from afar to observe the regalim festivals. Pilgrims making Aliyah (going up) were obligated by the Torah to pay the Temple tax by way of the official half-shekel (Exodus 30:11-16). Joh 2:15 And when He had prepared, constructed, fashioned (poieo[G]) a scourge, whip (phragellion[G]) out of individual cords [bound together] (schoinion pas[G]), He drove, cast (ekballo[G]) them all (kulam[H]) out of the temple (hieron[G], ha-mikdash[H]), and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out, sent flying, spilled abroad (ekchuno[G]) the changers' of small coins (kollubistes[G], Maot[H]), both the small coins (kerma[G]) and the tables (trapeza[G], ha-shulchaniym[H]) were overturned, destroyed (anatrepo[G], yahapokh[H]); “And when He had fashioned a scourge out of individual cords” This task would have taken a minimum of 30 minutes and probably up to an hour to complete. Yeshua maintained His Godly anger (Yaakov 1:20) over this period of time and focused on the creative task of making the whip out of numerous leather cords bound at the base and knotted at the ends, designed to draw blood. This was not the foolish instantaneous reaction of an angry man, rather it was the contained, premeditated, disciplinary action of the Spirit filled King Messiah. It is utterly foolish therefore, to claim that Yeshua was a pacifist (non-violent resistance). Just as the gospel is perpetually first for the Jews (Rom.1:16), so to the discipline of God is perpetually first for the Jews (Rom.2:9), and the coming glory of God’s Kingdom will be first for the Jews (Rom.2:10). He disciplines the ones He loves (Proverbs 3:12; Hebrews 12:6). The use of the Greek kollubistes (changers' of small coins) in place of kermatistes (Money brokers) which is used in the previous verse, is intentional. It refers to changers of even the smallest coins, meaning that every defiled item down to the least, was dispersed and driven out of the temple complex by the King Messiah Yeshua. The Greek anatrepo is more forceful than simply overturning (as in many English translations), it carries the sense of destruction. Yeshua did more than simply overturn the tables, He stomped them into pieces, such was His anger concerning the defiling of His Father’s House. The phrase “Gentle Jesus meek and mild”, while not entirely untrue, has none the less, become a lie of omission on the tongues of many believers. Therefore, we are reminded by the Gospel of Yochanan, that Yeshua has already come as a meek Lamb to the slaughter but He is now resurrected and will return as the warrior King Messiah, destroying the tables and wealth of God’s enemies and restoring righteousness and truth to the temple mount. Joh 2:16 And said to those that sold, bartered over (poleo[G]) doves (yonah[H]), “Take these things away; do not make My Father's (pater[G]) house a house of merchandise, trade, an emporium, a market place (emporion[G]).” Joh 2:17 And His disciples (talmidim[H]) remembered that it was written, “The zeal (zelos[G] kinat[H]) for Your, the (ho[G]) house (oikos[G] beiytecha[H]) has eaten me up, consumed me (katesthio[G achalateniy[H]).” “Kiy-kinat Because jealousy beiytecha for Your House achalateniy eats me, burns me up, vecherpot and the scorn, blaspheme, taunt, defying chorfeycha that has scorned, blasphemed, taunted, defyied You nafelu has fallen alay upon me.” -Psalm 69:9 We note that the so called “uneducated” am ha-aretz (people of the land, common people) disciples (talmidim) of Yeshua, were in fact very well versed in the Torah, Prophets and Writings of the Tanakh. The Scripture that they had recalled further illuminates the context of this incident at the temple. “I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother’s children; for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.” -Psalm 69:9-10 (NIV) Yeshua’s disciples understood that this scripture was being enacted in all its prophetic fullness, right before their eyes. This psalm of David was written at a time when he had been scorned by his own people and treated as a foreigner because of his zeal for God’s House (Temple), and all that entailed. Joh 2:18 Then (Ho[G]) the (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) Judeans (religious leaders in Jerusalem) answered and said to Him, “What sign (semeion[G], ot[H]) will you show, expose to our eyes (deiknuo[G]), seeing that you do these things?” It was believed (And rightly so), that according to the Tanakh, the Messiah when He came, would manifest signs and wonders like those of Moses and Elijah. The question of the religious leaders was not wrong in and of itself but the motivation behind their question sought to disprove Yeshua’s identity as the King Messiah. Thus, it is in large part because of their evil intent that Yeshua answers the way He does in the following verse. Joh 2:19 Yeshua answered and said to them, “Destroy, loose, unfasten, unbandage (luo[G]) this temple (naos[G], heiychal[H]) and in three days I will arouse, raise it up (egeiro[G]).” The word for temple here is the Greek naos rather than the formerly rendered hieron. Where hieron refers to the sum of the temple precinct courts, naos refers to the temple proper, the Holy place and the holy of holies. Likewise, the Hebrew text uses heiychal (sanctuary, holy place & holy of holies), rather than mikdash (temple precinct). We note that this chapter began “On the third day…” Joh 2:20 Then (Ho[G]) the (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) Judeans (religious leaders in Jerusalem) said, “This temple (naos[G], heiychal[H]) has been constructed over a period of forty six years, and wilt You arouse, raise it up (egeiro[G]) in three days?” It seems logical that men looking at literal earthly objects would conclude a physical meaning related to the temple itself in Jerusalem. The construction of Herod’s temple had begun in approximately 20-19 BCE (BC). The two years of preparation in construction is probably not included in the estimate of the religious leaders, which means that these events probably too place about 28 CE (AD). This confirms the view that the gospel writer is speaking of the first of two occasions where Yeshua turned over the tables of the money changers. In fact, the construction of the temple complex was not completed until 64 CE (AD) by Herod Agrippa, just six years before the Romans destroyed it. Joh 2:21 But He had spoken of the temple (naos[G], heiychal[H]) of His body (soma[G]). Joh 2:22 When therefore He was aroused, risen (egeiro[G]) from the dead (nekros[G]), His disciples, religious students (talmidim[H]) remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed, trusted, were confident in (pisteuo[G], yamiynu[H]) the Writing (graphe[G], katuv [ketvi] [H]) and the word (logos[G], davar[H]) which Yeshua had spoken. “The Temple of His body” being an intimate correlation to the temple of God. In both cases the Greek and Hebrew texts use the same word to describe the Holy place at the centre of the temple precinct “they believed in the Writing” Both the Greek graphe and the Hebrew katuv (ketvi) mean writing, written thing. Where others translate “scripture” it is more accurate to translate “Writings”, referring specifically to the third section of the Tanakh (OT) called the Ketuvim (Writings) which includes the poetry books [(Psalms, Proverbs, and Job), the Megillot, or Scrolls (Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, and Esther), and some of the books of prophecy (Daniel), and history (Ezra, Nehemiah, and I and II Chronicles).] Joh 2:23 Now when He was in Jerusalem (Yerushalayim[H]: Flood/Downpour of Peace and wholeness) at the Passover (Pascha[G], Chag ha-Pesach[H]), on the festival day (heorte[G], be’chag[H]), many believed, trusted, were confident (pisteuo[G], yamiynu[H]) in His Name (onoma[G], besh’mo[H]), when they saw the miracles (semeion[G], ha-otot[H]) which He did. “The festival day” refers to the day of the Passover sacrifice called the Chagigah (Festival offering). The miracles being referred to are those performed during this same period in Yeshua’s early ministry as recorded in the other gospels. “Many believed in His Name, when they saw the miracles which He did.” Many outside of Yeshua’s circle of family and disciples believed in Him based on the signs He was doing, signs like those of Moses and Elijah, which was what had been expected of the Messiah by the Jewish people. Like the three thousand at Shavuot (Pentecost) and the many thousands more among the Jews who believed both before and after His death and resurrection, it was this remnant of Israel (ethnic, religious, empirical, chosen) who were the first to receive Yeshua, and His gospel continues to be first for the Jews (Romans 1:16). Joh 2:24 But Yeshua did not commit, entrust (pisteuo[G], he’emiyn[H]), himself to them, upon which (al-asher[H]) he knew all (yada et-kulam[H]), Joh 2:25 And did not need the testimony (martureo[G], le’eidut[H]) of a man (iysh[H]) of humanity (anthropos[G], al-ha’adam[H]): for He knew (yada[H]) what was in, among (en[G], mah-bekerev[H]) humanity, the man (anthropos[G], ha-adam[H]). “But Yeshua did not entrust himself to them, upon which he knew” At this point in His ministry those who believed Yeshua was the promised Messiah would also have held tightly to the prophecies of His dominion over Israel and the nations. Therefore, they would have been eager to make Him King on the throne of David and see Him physically defeat the Roman empire and bring about the Messianic reign promised in the Tanakh (OT). Knowing this, Yeshua did not entrust Himself to the plans of human beings (cf. Matt.16:23; Mark 8:33). His time to rule and the Messianic age had not yet come, He must first suffer and die for all humanity. This reflects the gentle rebuke made to Miriyam earlier in the chapter (v.4). “Did not need the testimony of a man: for He knew what was in, among humanity” The second Adam Yeshua knew intimately the nature of the first Adam and his progeny (Humanity). It was not the approval or validation of human beings he sought but the honour and glory of the Father to Whom He submitted all things. Had Yeshua given in to the human desire to promote Himself, He may well have become King and victor over Rome, but at the cost of the damnation of all humanity. Yeshua was not afforded the luxury of error and repentance. He had come to be Holy, just as the Father is Holy. He would endure all things that a human being must endure but would remain sinless for the sake of all humanity. “4 Therefore, since we have a Kohen Gadol great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Yeshua the Son of Elohim, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a Kohen Gadol high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet remained without sin. 16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” -Hebrews 4:14-16 Copyright 2019 Yaakov Brown |
Yaakov BrownFounder of the Beth Melekh International Messiah Following Jewish Community, Archives
February 2024
|