My Near Conversion to Orthodox Judaism, pt V

Chol Moed Pesakh, 2001

Today is an equalizer. Peter arrived for weekday prayers with only a tallit. He and most of the men in the synagogue do not don tefillin as it is an intermediate day of Pesakh. As a non-Jew, Peter is not permitted to wear tefillin during weekday minyan. Tefillin increase the opportunity of Peter being mistaken for a Jew in quorum reckoning. Not wearing them makes him feel naked, but today, just like on a Yom Tov or Shabbat, Peter stands with the others—bare of tefillin. Today is an equalizer.

“Even maw’asu haboniym…” (The stone the builders rejected), recites Peter from the Hallel. He finishes this verse and then glances down to the following note in his ArtScroll Siddur:

___

The stone the builders despised has become the cornerstone. This verse refers to David, who was rejected by his own father and brothers. When the prophet Samuel announced that one of Jesse’s sons was to be anointed king, no one even thought of summoning David, who was out with the sheep. Israel too is called [stone], for Israel is the cornerstone of God’s design for the world…But the builders, i.e., the rulers of the nations, despised the Jews…

___

Peter sees an immediate and profound relationship between Israel and her Messiah. Both are rejected and despised. Israel is abhorred and rejected by the nations while her Messiah is the one abhorred and rejected by the nation [Israel]. His mind hearkens to Isaiah 49:7

כֹּה אָמַר-יְהוָה גֹּאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל קְדוֹשׁוֹ, לִבְזֹה-נֶפֶשׁ לִמְתָעֵב גּוֹי

For says YHWH, Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One to [him] despised of the soul, to [him] abhorred by the nation…

Though this is a day of equalization—a day in which the visible signs of Peter’s status as a non-Jew are removed—he feels the weight of his difference. Though standing amongst the rejected nation who is called, “My servant, Israel,” he feels a sense of alienation. The sacrifices and commitments that he has displayed have not been met with the acceptance and open arms that he expected. Rather, Peter has found general coolness with respect to his conversion. This reality is startling, and acceptance of it creates a sense of estrangement or subtle dubiosity. He finds himself yearning for identification with the rejected Messiah.

The walk home is made pleasant with the earth’s redolent offerings released from their winter captivity. The waters are still contained behind the dam, but today’s revelation has strengthened the current.

"God is Not a Man..." Part II

Our passage states that God cannot “repent” (Hebrew nacham). This is taken to mean that God is impassible. The impassibility of God is the dogmatic assertion that God is incapable of being affected by the created order over whish He transcends. However, the witness of Moses and the Prophets suggests that God can be and is affected dynamically by the created order. In the following passages, God will be shown to “repent” or “feel remorse” with regard to an action taken. Through this brief exercise, it will become clear that the rejected “repentance of God” in Numbers 23:19 is not an unmitigated or comprehensive statement about the nature of God.

The Hebrew term for “repent” in the following passages is nacham which is the word used in Number 23:19. Moses writes, “YHWH repented that He had made man on the earth…” (Genesis 6:6). Similarly, in the face of the golden calf incident, Moses asks God, “Turn from Your burning anger and repent of the evil to Your people” (Exodus 32:12).

The prophet Joel (2:13) writes:

[God] is gracious and compassionate,
Slow to anger, abounding in
kindness,
And repenting of evil.

Consistent with the examples in Moses, Joel goes further. He demonstrates that the “repentance of God” (nachmat Elohim) is part of the very nature of God. However, this exercise reveals an aspect of God’s nature inconsistent with a specific reading of Numbers 23:19. God is capable of “repenting” or “changing His mind.” He is affected by creation and not the impassible, static deity of the stoics.

Our journey through this passage hence commences with a demonstration that Numbers 23:19 is not a comprehensive statement about the nature of God. More will follow.

"God is Not a Man..." Part I

“God is not a man…” (Numbers 23:19)

Does Numbers 23:19 militate against the doctrine of the incarnation? Believers in the doctrine of the incarnation assert that God became a man—the man Christ Jesus (Yeshua the Anointed). How does the incarnation relate to this passage?

Our entire passage in context reads:

וַיִּשָּׂא מְשָׁלוֹ, וַיֹּאמַר: קוּם בָּלָק וּשְׁמָע, הַאֲזִינָה עָדַי בְּנוֹ צִפֹּר.
לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה.
הִנֵּה בָרֵךְ, לָקָחְתִּי; וּבֵרֵךְ, וְלֹא אֲשִׁיבֶנָּה.

And he took up his parable, and said: Arise, Balak, and hear; give ear unto me, thou son of Zippor: God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good? Behold, I am bidden to bless; and when He hath blessed, I cannot call it back.

It is critical to note that this passage answers the exigency of Balaam’s commission to curse Israel. Balaam here comments on the nature of God relative to the inextricable nature of His relationship to His people Israel. It will be found that this passage is not didactically attempting to relate the inner nature of God. Rather, as already stated, this passage confirms the inability of God to abrogate His covenant relationship with Israel.

Finding Our Way...

Finding Our Way: The Mired Journey from Destruction’s City to Destruction’s Town
(a response to Brian Tebbitt’s parable in “Finding Our Way: A Difficult Path”)


Destruction’s City:

Heathen statutes undiscerned
Way of the heathen amply learned
Veneer of ardor so impeccant
Empty shell to God abhorrent
Destruction’s City grasps the roll
Communion with departed souls
Gravesite veneration
Unholy spirit dissemination.

To the Holy City:

Statutes heathen, they discern
Perfect precepts embraced to learn
Pursuit of God, humble suppliant
Trust in God, on Him reliant.
Destruction’s City no longer pulls
City of God ahead the goal
Holy Writ infatuation
Spirit, joy, celebration.

Path Differed -- Destruction’s Town:

Heathen statutes undiscerned
Way of the heathen amply learned
Thrice-washed hands, yet on descent
Postern entry, signage reticent
Wayward town, rote to lull
Spirit’s fire dampened, dull
Gravesite veneration
Unholy spirit dissemination.

by Peter C. Sander
edit by Renah

My Near Conversion to Orthodox Judaism, Interlude

by Peter Sander

Find entrance to the narrow gate
Through which find the waters living
Forgo Him, Oh! A dreaded fate
Embrace Him now, the Oft Forgiving.

Others have a wall erected
Through ordinances that set a limit
Zealously a well protected
To keep away the thirsty admit.

This thirsty soul bore the weight
Sought from this well the guarded giving
And rather found a fleeting bait
All this to his own misgiving.

For this well, the Lord rejected
Idols in his heart did sit
The liberating Word deflected
Self-charmed by trust in wit.

Forsaken was the freeing yoke
For promise of a purer well
Forbidden fire did he stoke
A piety of rote to lull.

Burden heavy, nigh to croak
Beneath the weight, which on him fell
God the scaffold was wont to poke
To make the burden twice a hell.

‘Neath the weight, finally broken
Chastised son, His praises tell
Of the gate that was forsaken
Yea, the Lord, this trial to quell.

Burden lifted, Spirit freeing
On my knees, His presence new
Commandments with new eyes seeing
Life infused, so free to do.

Without a Great One

On the seat of Moses sitting
The arbiter of legal bidding
A code without a living judge
Claimed alive, yet mire or sludge.

This herald of the rabbinic scepter
Does not have an interceptor
To unravel an encoded rubric
Of rote and lore distant, delphic.

Written Law without tradition
Claimed to be without munition
With the sages, now revealed
To whose wisdom ere to yield.

Left alone, the Holy Writ
A legal code alone will sit
Rabbinic law to make it living
All of life swift encircling.

On the seat of Moses sitting
The arbiter of legal bidding
A code without a living judge
Claimed alive, yet mire or sludge.

This sagacious postulation
Must purview the destination
With the absence of a mentor
Who can pasken, true to tenor.

For the code to be alive
And a community to thrive
A living teacher, there must be
To apply the rule faithfully.

This rule by pliant custom set
Will not without it yet
Allow itself to exist
Without a teacher ere persist.

On the seat of Moses sitting
The arbiter of legal bidding
A code without a living judge
Claimed alive, yet mire or sludge.

No teacher there to be
It will happen for all to see
Yes, in the absence of a great one
Scepter passes to the chief gun.

From which flows the claim to life
Only shall end in strife
For what by Spirit is revealed
By this tradition, soon concealed.

By Peter C. Sander

* Great One = Rabbi

My Near Conversion to Orthodox Judaism, pt IV

Near Conversion, part IV

Peter’s kippah takes leave of his head as it begins an airborne escape down Pratt. A chase ensues. It is Shabbat morning, and Peter with tallit trailing behind like a super hero’s cape, looks as comical as he is eager to capture his displaced kippah.

Triumphantly Peter captures his kippah. He repositions the kippah and his face glows as he contemplates his manager’s comment yesterday. "Imagine!" Peter's manager declares, "What a day it is when an observant Jew can openly wear a kippah and dispatch unruly, uneducated movers!” Though secular and unobservant, Peter’s manager is a Jew. Peter latches onto the label “observant Jew.” He thinks about these words as they offer him a sense of belonging and identity.

After service, Peter remains at the shul for Kiddush and warm cholent. One of the community members offers a d’var Torah related to הַחֲסִידָה (ha-chasidah, “stork” in Lev 11:19) and its uncleanness.

“הַחֲסִידָה (chasidah) is the feminine form of chasid (pious/merciful one),” Rich* explains. “Why is the stork called הַחֲסִידָה (chasidah)?” he pauses. “Because it shows kindness to its offspring and to the offspring of other stork parents. Storks live in colonies, and the parent storks will feed the offspring of other parents. Also, the stork walks uprightly or piously and so it is הַחֲסִידָה (chasidah),” Rich stops again.

Rich asks, “Why if הַחֲסִידָה (chasidah) is such a noble beast, is it unclean?” The question is rhetorical, and he resumes, “The הַחֲסִידָה (chasidah) is kind to its own—to its own species. However, הַחֲסִידָה (chasidah) does not care for others outside of its own kind, its own species. This is why she is unclean.”

Rich’s homily is then applied to family and congregational cliques among Jews. He asks for those present to consider other Jews who might be in need of compassion in order to reach out to them.

Peter’s mind grasps the imagery of הַחֲסִידָה (chasidah). Peter finds the intra-Judaic horizon of Rich’s homily too narrow and far from the mark idealized in the prophets. Peter mentally connects passages:

מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים, וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ “Kingdom of priests, and a holy nation…”

לְאוֹר גּוֹיִם “…a light to the nations…”

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hid.”

The warm April wind presents a challenge to Peter’s kippah and this last passage compels Peter to thought. It is a statement from Yeshua recorded in the Gospel of Matthew.

* Name changed to protect privacy.