28) Sermon Audio

Torah Portion: Terumah – Ex 25:1-27:19, I Kings 5:26-6:13

“Necessity” (2009/02/21) Sermon Audio

Torah Portion: Mishpatim – Ex 21:1-24:18, Jer 34:8-22, 33:25-26

BUT FOR THE GRACE OF G-D

“I’ve never decided a man’s worth by the size of his wallet.” – Oliver Stone’s Wall Street.

“My ambition is to be an idealist without illusions.” – President John F. Kennedy.

Harry Truman once said he wished he could find a one-armed economist, because his advisors were always saying, “On the one hand this, but on the other hand, that.”

Can anyone tell with whom G-d is pleased by how much a person appears to have?

Are the things that have most, most “blessed?”

On the one hand, “The L-rd shall open to you His good treasure of heaven to give the rain to your land in His season, and to bless all the work of your hand: and you shall lend to many nations, and you shall not borrow.” (Deut. 28:12) — but on the other hand — ”The righteous man is (successfully) unjustly condemned, and no one pays attention as just people are (successfully) taken away by evil.” (Isa. 57:1)

On the one hand, “When I cry unto You, then shall my enemies turn back: by this I know G-d is for me.” (Ps. 56:9) —- but on the other hand, “…heroes of faith were tortured, not being rescued; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and whippings, yes, also of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned to death, they were sawn in half, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (people of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.” (Hebrews 11:35-38)

On the one hand, King Solomon wrote “In the multitude of people is the king’s honor: but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince.” (Prov. 14:28), but on the other hand, King David wrote, “I am small and despised, but I do not forsake your precepts.” (Ps. 119:141)

Here is the truth of it – there is no generic meaning to abundance or lack.

Certain billionaire investors looked abundantly blessed until recently, when the dishonest manner in which they acquired their wealth came to light. Now they don’t look quite so blessed. The Bakkers had the most influential and widely known television ministry except for Billy Graham and The 700 Club – until their dysfunctions and wrongdoings came to light.

King Solomon observed, “I have seen an evil in the world, that it happens to a righteous person as it should befall the wicked, and it happens to a wicked person as it should befall the righteous.” (Ecclesiastes 8:14) This disorienting scenario nearly drove the psalmist Asaph insane, as he records for us in Psalm 73.

Rav Saul taught us on this topic this way: ”Some people’s sins are openly known beforehand, going before them to judgment; and some people’s follow after.” (1Tim. 5:24) In modern language, some people who are manifestly wicked appear to “get away with” the evil they do. If one “succeeds” in unjustly stealing from or harming someone, does that “prove” that G-d’s “blessing” was on the deeds or the perpetrators? Does every criminal who gets away with theft, murder, perjury, or other such deeds have “G-d’s ‘blessing’” on him? Does harm befalling someone “prove” that G-d has forsaken them? By that standard, every G-dly hero in Scripture would have appeared during particular seasons in their lives to be “proven” not to have G-d’s favor, and to be evil people displeasing to G-d, receiving Heaven’s just dealings for their wrongs. However, when Job’s friends told him this “obvious” truth about his sufferings, they so enraged G-d that He told them if Job did not intercede for them and if they did not do seriously sacrificial repentance for their words, G-d was going to execute punishment on them for so pompously and egregiously misrepresenting Him. (Job 42:7-9) When Ahitophel tried to capitalize on King Saul’s evil and unfounded exile of King David, he lost everything when G-d eventually turned the unjust situation back around. (2Sam. 17:23)

As usual, Messiah Yeshua does a better job of dealing with this issue than any other teacher. When in His era he overheard discussion of two recent tragedies in which some Jews were murdered gruesomely by the Romans, and also a tower collapsed killing many people, it appears the gossipers were under the impression that such deaths “proved” those who died or were injured were people with whom G-d was not pleased. Yeshua interjected, “Do you think those people were worse sinners than every person in Jerusalem? I tell you no.” (Luke 13:1-9) Yeshua’s disciple, Shimon-Kefa (Peter), put the same concept Yeshua taught in Luke 13 this way: “The L-rd is not slack regarding his word (standards), as some people reckon slackness; but is patient to an extreme with us, not desiring that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2Peter 3:9)

G-d is simply giving people room to define themselves; and leaving certain mysteries as mysteries. Prosperity and lack, safety and danger have no generic meaning; and those who dare speak for G-d on such a simplistic level, reducing the mysteries of life to compact formulas that really have no value other than to create an illusion of safety or access to gain – all of which appeals to people on some of our lowest levels, and enables sales of conference tickets, audio CDs and DVDs promising sure paths to “blessing” – do such ill service toward G-d as he actually is, and truth as it actually exists – that Scripture tells us the Creator is angered by such misrepresentation to the point of punitive action when it reaches a certain level.

What is legitimate? Pain hurts. When someone is hurting, it is “spiritual” to say “ouch.”

“There is time to rejoice and a time to weep, say the Scriptures. (Eccl. 3:4) When Yeshua went to a funeral, Scripture tells us bluntly, “Yeshua wept.” (John 11:35)

I know a religious leader who went to a concert the night of the same day their spouse died; and said to everyone, “This is the day the L-rd has made, I will be glad and rejoice in it.” This person apparently genuinely thought this was a good example of g-dliness. They were, in fact, acting in a massively anti-Scriptural and unhealthy a manner – as the emotional consequences of this denial behavior manifested over time. Not weep the day one’s spouse of decades dies? Go to a celebration the same night? Tell people looking to one as a spiritual example that the spiritual thing to do when one’s spouse of decades dies is to ignore it and treat it like any other day in which fun things happen? Please. Such patently unhealthy behavior dishonors marriage, the deceased spouse, and by trading as ’spirituality’ defiles genuine truth-seeking as well.

At the funeral of a friend, Yeshua wept.

There is a time when it is proper – fitting – correct, to weep. It is spiritual.

Spirituality is not unhealthy - but some people are.

Spirituality is not unengaged with the real, complex world – but some people are.

Spirituality is not able to reduce life to any easy formula in which life is only “about joy.”

Perhaps the most inanely interpreted and applied religious sentence ever to gain prominence in Western religious life was said by the 16th-century British religionist, John Bradford; who, as he watched prisoners being led to execution, said, “There but for the grace of G-d, go I.” Bradford was referring to the influence of the Spirit of G-d in his life, as a manifestation of G-d’s kindness to him, preventing him from choosing such a life of sin. However, people now use this sentence to refer to others in misfortune. As if “the grace of G-d” is somehow more with the people who do not suffer misfortune than those who do. This is EXACTLY what Yeshua and Peter and Solomon and Job all taught against.

There is no formula.

Abundance and lack have no generic meaning.

As Albert Einstein was so fond of saying, “Ach – nicht so einfach ist es.”

Things are not so simple.

Neither G-d nor Messiah are allergic to complexity – nor should we be.

When Rav Saul/Paul was in a persistent kind of pain he called “a thorn in the flesh,” Scripture tells us he went to serious prayer three times that G-d would remove the painful thing (whatever it was) from his life. G-d’s answer was, “No, I am going to leave it there,” and the Creator went on to say of His decision to do so, “my grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” (2Cor. 12:9)

G-d’s grace can apparently found as a matter of His direct, best will, in circumstances that to the human eye do not remotely qualify as abundance or blessing.

Bummer.

It would appear we must look elsewhere for what indicates who is pleasing to G-d and who is not.

Where, oh where shall we look? Oh – I remember now – “To the Torah and testimony of the prophets: if people do not speak in accord with that word, there is no dawn in them.” (Isa. 8:20) And what does Scripture say?

“The L-rd knows who really belongs to Him, but here is the hallmark of G-d’s genuine family: everyone who names the Name of the L-rd (accurately, genuinely) departs from evildoing.” (2Tim. 2:19)

Want to know who is pleasing to G-d? Don’t look at what they have. Get to know what they are.

Apparent abundance can collapse in a minute: and a widow with mere pennies to give can be more righteous than any army of abundantly heeled people acting out religious accomplishment in her very presence. (Mk. 12:42-44)

Truth is not so simple.

That is not bad news – it is simply challenging.

Ted Sorensen recently wrote in his book, Counselor: A Life On The Edge of History, that President Kennedy was fond of quoting something he learned as a Catholic growing up: “Do not pray for an easier life: pray to be stronger people.” Actually, my favorite quote from that president goes like this: “My ambition is to be an idealist without illusions.”

Idealists without illusions.

Y’hi ratzon (May it be G-d’s will) for us and all whom we influence.

20 February 2009

“The Love of G-d” (2009/02/14) Sermon Audio

Torah Portion: Yitro – Ex 18:1 -20:23, Isa 6:1-7:6, 9:5

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Promises, Promises

“We dare not promise what we ought not, lest we be called upon to deliver that which we cannot.” – Abraham Lincoln

Today is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, and thus seems a good time to offer up my favorite quote from him.

Healthy faith does not make promises it cannot keep. It treats a promise with the value a promise has: and endeavors never to offer an inducement to someone that makes definite something one cannot control or assure.

An author named Nassim Taleb explained in his books “The Black Swan” and “Fooled by Randomness” how people who do not understand the astronomical number of factors involved in every instance of “success” are deceived by stock-fund managers, method authors, and vendors of success tools into thinking “If I just follow his method, do what she did, learn how he thinks, mimic her choices – I will be as successful as Bill Gates, Madonna, Warren Buffett, Ivana Trump.” And it does not happen. Why? Promises have been either explicitly or implicitly made about things the promisor cannot possibly guarantee.

Toxic faith does not hesitate to make such promises – often due to lack of depth of understanding about either what is being promised or what it means morally to give such a promise – and then sinks into masquerading behaviors when the promised things fail to arrive. There are religious works having definitively promised their acolytes big things for decades – and having failed to produce them, have turned to distracting side-lanes of effort and focus. If one says one’s calling is to build a bridge and promises God will make it happen – and after three decades a playground and sandbox are all that is there – one can point to all the children playing in the sand and say sandboxes are good and children having fun are great: both things are true; but what one promised is not there, and no amount of children in the sandbox substitutes for the absent bridge.

Some things, especially in regard to their specific timing, should not be promised – even by implication – because they simply cannot be guaranteed.

Let’s face it: there is no amount of praying. fasting, believing, or spiritual effort that could have made the spiritual outpouring described in Acts 2 happen even one day sooner than it did: God had a day planned for it, and even Messiah did not specify “the day or the hour.” He simply told his followers what was incumbent on them to do (correctly). “Remain in the city until you are endued with power from On High. Afterwards you will be my witnesses in Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

He gave them clear instructions on what to do, told them what the desired result was: and commended them to what was in their reach to do: bend their best efforts to walk in God’s will. The “arrival” date of the promised enduement from On High was not even hinted. Messiah was careful in this regard.

Daniel and his companions were careful not to be over-confident in their faith-speech. They told the king who was about to have them burned alive, “The God we serve can deliver us from the fiery furnace, and we believe he will. But even if He does not, we will not bow down to your statue.”

There are some people who understand what it means morally to state a certainty.

A song from the 1960’s went, “I never promised you a rose garden.”

The Zionists never promised their adherents anything but a meaningful and necessary line of effort.

Yeshua warned His followers, “In this world you will have tribulation.”

Rav Saul of Tarshish (Paul) told his followers after he had been pelted nearly to death with rocks, “By many trials we must enter the kingdom of God.”

In the film, The Matrix, the character Morpheus invites the hero, Neo, to take an irreversible step toward understanding why he and his entire species are living a lie. As Neo is about to take that step, Morpheus says, “Remember: all I am promising you is the truth.”

Can we promise impoverished people wealth? We ought not – but some have.

Can we promise lonely people an abundance of friends? We ought not – but some have.

Can we promise (directly or by implication) that a person with a hitherto difficult life will find in God a path to comfort or diminishment of challenges? Hardly – but some have.

What should we promise anyone in God’s Name?

What ought we promise that we can deliver?

We can promise what The Shema indicates: the Creator of the Universe exists in a specific manner, and will directly extend Himself toward those people who desire to be governed by truth, now and for eternity. Messiah affirmed, “All who are ‘of the truth’ will hear (obey/perceive) my voice (impartations of guidance).”

We can promise truth will become increasingly present as the God-offered driver of a person’s existence; and that the door to the direct participation of God in one’s life in a way not limited entirely by natural law (such as direct healings) can and very likely will occur as one grows in faithfulness to the precepts the Creator has offered to us in objectively-proven-by-fact form of The Scriptures. That is about the limit of what we can reliably say.

On this, the birthday of “Honest Abe” – I promise to do my best never to promise what I cannot deliver; and to do my best to be an agent of the One who can, and often does deliver – on His own timetable and in the manner of His own choosing.

No one has ever bottled God’s doings – and no mere human ever will.

I promise.

12 February 2009

Darwin: Toward A Literate Literality

Today is Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. A good time to set the record straight.

There is nothing about what Darwin said or wrote that directly contradicts the accounts of creation in the Two Testaments of Hebrew Scripture. Darwin only contradicts one very narrow and incautious reading of one part of those Scriptures, while ignoring all the other relevant content in the same books of the Bible, and other sections of those writings as well.

The six “yom” (day/era) periods in the Genesis creation account are literarily impossible to translate definitively as being twenty-four hour days, when Genesis 2:4 uses the word “yom” (a single day) for the time in which the entire heavens and earth and all that is in them were created. One day cannot also be six – and therefore “day” is established definitively as being an “era” or “period of time” rather than the present sidereal 24-hour period also represented by the word. (We can leave aside for the time being the absence of an earth, sun, or moon during these periods – when a sidereal day would have been non-existent as yet.)

This being so, the idea there were periods of development of the differing contents of the seas, land and air – Darwin’s assertion – is not even a stretch to faith in the literal text of the Scriptures: the same text that asserts the earth is a sphere suspended in the void of space, and that space has been and is stretching out rather than static (Job 26:7, Isa. 40:22), and numerous other scientifically proven facts.

Darwin’s thoughts were not anti-God: they were cogent, and genuinely sensible.

Darwin found it incomprehensible that an all-benevolent Creator would directly construct a world in which wasps like the ichnumonidae would by intentional direct design of their Creator sting other creatures to paralyze them, lay their eggs inside the venom-paralyzed, still living and conscious bodies of those creatures, and the newly hatched young wasps would eat their way out of the still-living and conscious host. Darwin felt there must be an intervening process between direct creation and the existence of such an arrangement in Nature. Since none of us knows the process by which God in Genesis 2:7 “formed humankind from the dust of the ground” (not zapping us into existence from non-existence), careful Bible readers must allow that some process is at least possible, and beyond that, very likely. I have never been one of those people who believes the entire universe of scientifically observable phenomena (like the red-shift of the light waves from galaxies moving away from us) was put there by God as some kind of cosmic goof on us, to lead us away from truth. As Einstein said, “Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist Er nicht.” (God is enigmatic, but He is not malicious.”)

I would like to offer a suggestion to anyone down on Darwin, whose opinion of him has been formed by anything other than direct exposure to his writings: read them.

You will find a charming, energetic intellect engaged with the broadest of themes as expressed by the minutest of details: and no trace of hatred of truth, righteousness, or offerings of alleged proofs against the possible existence of a Creator. You will meet a man in love with the existence of life and the mysteries of its development.

Truth is a friend of Scripture – and true science, no enemy.

There are many scientific problems with orthodox Darwinian theory, but the overarching view of life’s origins on earth seems accurately informed by it on many, many levels.

Darwin’s theory of “random mutation and natural selection” (the actual name of his evolutionary hypothesis) does not in any manner rebut the accurately-read Scriptural information on the same idea.

On this, Darwin’s 200th Birthday, I want to affirm the value of his work; and that it is not only benign to a “literal” faith in Scripture’s content, but in my view, quite supportive of it.

12 February 2009

Purim Party!

March 7, 2009
12:45 pm	to	5:00 pm

Come Celebrate Purim With Us!




			(Donations processed through PayPal)

Click here for location details.

“Roots” (2009/02/07) Sermon Audio

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Drafts Sent By Error? Delete Without Reading ASAP Please?

To Whom It May Concern:

In our Wordpress website’s control dashboard, there is a button that defines a draft as “private” and as either a “draft” (not to be posted on the site) or “publish” (to be posted for public reading on the site).

It seems possible some very rough drafts of essays of which I was doing early drafts for a possible later publication on our page on our website or another site – about the condition of the worldwide Messianic Movement – somehow may have gotten published while being shifted from “private” to “draft” status.

If this happened, and any of these drafts reached you – please delete them. They were never intended in their present form to be seen by anyone other than me. They are the earliest of rough sketches I would not even show to my circle of counsel yet.

My last finished blog essay was entitled “Yeshua or Y’shua.” Anything that came after that until this moment (4:58 pm Wednesday 4 Feb 2009) was sent out by a technical error.

Thank you.

Rabbi Bruce L. Cohen

Yeshua or Y’shua? A Genuine Resolution

One good use of a rabbi’s blog is to help dispel confusion.

I encounter a fair amount of confusion about whether the transliteration of the name of Messiah from Hebrew into English is properly rendered, “Yeshua,” or “Y’shua,” – or whether both are somehow equally valid spellings.

Since I hold a degree in Comparative Literature (the study of texts in multiple languages), and worked professionally as a definitions editor and writer for a major international English dictionary,* I can offer a more than casual contribution on this topic: and since this spelling conflict has created an unnecessary schism in Messianic norms – as if we need more things to divide us – and, since one of these spellings is awkward in English usage to the point of being distracting – I thought I would offer my view of this matter from the standpoint of my specific academic training and my thirty years of experience teaching about disputed texts.

The Yeshua spelling is correct, and the Y’shua spelling is incorrect.

There are no circumstances under which the spelling Y’shua could be considered correct. This is not a matter of opinion, but of standard, normative linguistic practice.

In all vowelized Hebrew New Testaments, whether Delitzsch, Modern, or the Aramaic Peshitta, the vowel beneath the yod in Yeshua’s name is a “tsereh” (..) which is pronounced “ehy” like the end of Sunday, and is denoted in English transliteration varyingly by the letters e, ey, or ay. It is never denoted by an apostrophe, which is reserved in transliterations of Hebrew to indicate a glottal stop as rendered either by the vowel called a “shvah” (:) or in relation to a letter with a glottal quality to its correct pronunciation, like the back-of -the-throat letter ayin. In transliterations, this glottal indication (awkward because it has no English equivalent) looks like this: ‘ozzi [See Keil-Delitzsch Vol. 7 Isaiah, p. 292]. In Yeshua’s name, the end ayin would justify the spelling Yeshu’a – but since the English contains no glottal, adding the awkward apostrophe serves no purpose, and for that reason, virtually no one uses it in non-scholarly writing.

This being so – why is the Y’shua spelling used? Insofar as I am aware, there is one justification held forth by its primary proponents, and there are three reasons (motivations) not so often openly discussed.

The primary international installer of use of the Y’shua spelling is the California-based Hebrew Christian evangelical association called “Jews for Jesus.” Two of their highest executives (Executive Director David Brickner, and Australia National Director Bob Mendelsohn) explained this spelling to me in person years ago, and both offered the same justification, which was repeated to me by JFJ Founder Moishe Rosen just yesterday in an email: “There is no correct way to spell a transliteration.” With all due respect, this statement is simply not accurate.

In language, rules emanate from either established grammatical precepts or from usage itself creating a norm. In both cases, where Hebrew transliteration has been and is done, an apostrophe is never to my knowledge used normatively to denote a tsereh. It is only used for the sh’vah and to differentiate the open glottal ‘ayin from the non-glottal open aleph. FYI, this is why Gaza is spelled with a “g” when the name in Hebrew is actually spelled ‘ayin, zayin, hey. The “g” is intended to mimic as closely as possible the back-throat pronounciation of ‘ayin – thus turning ‘Azah into Gaza. Rules in language exist via code and practice. I can insist it is permissible for me to spell ‘fish’ with the letters g, h, o, t, i (“gh” making the “f” sound as in “tough,” o making the “i” sound as in “women.” and “ti” making the “sh” sound as in “action”) – and it will still not make that spelling a sound choice for a fish store: signs with “Fresh ‘Ghoti‘ Sold Here!” written on them will not serve fish sellers’ interests. And there are rules for this kind of choice. Scripture commands us to have respect for what is considered honest/respectable in the sight of all humankind,” (Rom. 12:17b) and not to make choices that would make us, as Believers, appear unsound of mind to non-believers. (1Cor. 14:23)

Injecting this non-normative, patently incorrect usage into the communication of our Movement within itself and with the outside world is, in this writer’s view, unjustifiable.

So much for justification. Now – as to the reasons for its use. I trust my reader understands justification [back-loading validation for installation or maintenance of usage] is different from reason (motivation) for the choice to install or maintain usage. Insofar as I am aware, the three main reasons for Y’shua being used by Jews for Jesus (which I got from the people involved first hand on both sides of the question) have to do with JFJ using the variation in spelling as a marketing tracking device for JFJ’s influence as contrasted with other Jewish believing ministries: those using it “downstream” would be more identifiable as having come to faith via JFJ. The second anecdote is about a supposed dispute between JFJ founder Moishe Rosen and one of the first synagogual Messianic Jewish proponents during the 1970’s over use of Judaic nomenclature by Messiah-believers. The third, which I heard for the first time only a few days ago, involved a desire to render the name easier to pronounce. While these accounts were, as I said, all relayed to me first hand by the people involved, there is some inconsistency in them that, in my view, renders them unfit for detailed publication – especially regarding an issue needing to be resolved in a professional manner.

The spelling “Yeshuah” would also technically be correct from an isolated angle, since the additional end-”h” technically does not alter pronunciation; but the Yeshuah spelling is not to be preferred, for a specific scholarly reason: in Hebrew, the male proper name Yeshua is spelled “yod, shin, vav, ‘ayin and the “thing” salvation (rescue) is spelled yod, shin, vav, ‘ayin, hey. In Hebrew, that end “h” letter renders the word a noun rather than a proper noun, and renders its gender feminine, rather than the masculine name without the end-hey. So – in English transliteration, it would be a poor choice to spell the Messiah’s first name, Yeshuah with the end-”h” because it makes the word less clear in meaning. The end “h” normatively being absent or present lends additional clarity as to whether the noun or a person is being referenced by the word. Paul the Apostle wrote of this kind of choice-making priority system when he said, “All (non-criminal) things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All (non-criminal) things are lawful, but not all things edify.” (1Cor. 10:23) Just because you can “get away with” doing something at the outer margins of permissibility does not mean it is advisable that you do it.

There are rules. Big, clear ones. In scholarship and in relevant Biblical precept texts.

Thus – in closing – with all anecdotal information aside, and on scholarly grounds only: the spelling Y’shua is incorrect, and in this writer’s view should be stricken from Messianic Jewish practice as quickly as the international community can absorb the facts of its impropriety, and transmit reconfiguration regarding its use.

*[Rabbi Bruce Cohen holds a B.A. cum laude in Comparative Literature from Union College, and did additional work in foreign language at Columbia University in Manhattan. In addition to teaching local, regional, national and international classes in religious literature across thirty years, he has also been a Yeshiva Instructor (Teacher of Rabbis) in Talmudic Literature in the IAMCS Yeshiva, and is a widely published author on related topics, and was a Definitions Editor and Writer for Houghton Mifflin's American Heritage Dictionary 2nd College Edition.]

3 February 2009