The BLK SHP Bible Talk Episode: They Found It in a Cave: The Isaiah Scroll

“I’m going to tell you a story that’s as frustrating as it is heartbreaking. It’s the story of how generations of faithful YHVH-worshippers came so close to seeing the Messiah yet still missed him.

They didn’t miss him because the evidence wasn’t there. It was always there. There’s a scroll sitting in a museum in Jerusalem. It was copied before Jesus of Nazareth was born. And what it says about the Messiah is something the rabbis spent a thousand years trying not to talk about. The ancient Jewish scholars knew something their own descendants were never told.

2,000 years of Jewish scholarship contain a portrait of the Messiah so specific that it names his birthplace.

It describes his death, and it fixes the century of his arrival. I’m talking about ancient Jewish writings. Some of them you may have heard of. Maybe you’ve even read some of them. The Talmud and the Midrash, the Targams, the Zohar, the sacred libraries the rabbis themselves

built. And somewhere between 1096 AD and 1,200 AD, about a thousand years ago, what that library said about the Messiah got buried. Not out of deception, I don’t think, but out of grief”.

Hazan Gavriel ben David – Response

I watched the episode “They Found It in a Cave, and It Turned Modern Judaism Upside Down.” The host presents a long list of pre-Christian Jewish sources that he claims clearly describe a suffering, dying, and rising individual Messiah who matches Jesus. He argues that the collective reading of Isaiah 53 is a later invention forced on the Jewish people by trauma and polemic.

I would like to first ask a few questions to the viewers of BLK. Do you want to know the truth, or are you just going along like everyone else in the world, following Rome’s orders?

The Christian Bible has nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible. The Bible is a Greek word; it was originally called the Tanach and was later given its name by the Greeks. In Greek, the Bible means the Tanach/Book.

A Book Like No Other Makes A Point

Rabbi David Fohrman opens his A Book Like No Other series on the Garden of Eden with several simple but devastating questions about the scene itself:

1. Why are there two special trees in the center of the Garden — the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil — when God only mentions one in the command?
2. Why does God command Adam to eat from all the trees of the Garden (including the Tree of Life), yet after eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, He suddenly guards the Tree of Life as if it had never been available?
3. Why does Eve tell the snake that “the tree in the middle of the Garden” is forbidden, when Genesis 2:9 places the Tree of Life in the middle?
4. Why did Hashem not tell Adam about the Tree of Life?
5. Where is the Tree of Life?
6. Why did Hashem create something that has no use in the world?

These are not minor details. They are the Torah’s way of forcing us to look at the actual blueprint. The anomalies are the message.

Adam Did Not Know About The Tree of Life

Now ask yourself the same question the Torah forces us to ask:

How did we get from the Garden to questions about Jesus?

How did a story about two trees, a command to eat from all of them, a tempter who told the truth about consequences, and a path that was never lost become a story about inherited total depravity, a divine blood sacrifice, and a dying-and-rising individual Messiah?

This is the rewrite of the blueprint.

Isaiah 53 and Zephaniah 3: “No Iniquity in Their Mouth”

Christian teachers frequently isolate Isaiah 53:9 — “because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth” — as proof of a sinless individual Messiah. But the prophets themselves connect this language directly to the righteous remnant of Israel.

Look at Zephaniah 3:13 (in the same prophetic tradition):

“The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.”

This is the exact same phrasing as Isaiah 53:9. The servant who has “no deceit in his mouth” is the faithful remnant of Israel that emerges purified after judgment. They are the ones who will dwell securely, feeding and lying down in peace — classic end-time restoration language for the nation and its righteous core.

Rambam (Maimonides) on Jesus

Jesus of Nazareth, who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court, was also alluded to in Daniel’s prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: “The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.”

Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord.

^{Jeremiah 19} O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

²⁰ Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods?

²¹ Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The Lord.

Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts. Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite [Muhammad] who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for Mashiach’s coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve God together as Zephaniah 3:9 states: “I will transform the peoples to a purer language so that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.”

How will this come about? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of Mashiach, Torah, and mitzvot… When the true Messianic king arises and proves successful, his position becomes exalted and uplifted, and they will all return and realize that their ancestors bestowed upon them a false heritage and that their prophets and ancestors caused them to err.

The Rambam Makes His Point

The Rambam, in Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Melachim u’Milchamot 11:4), addresses claims about Jesus directly and rejects them firmly. He writes that Jesus was not the Messiah, but rather one who caused Israel to go astray and the world to err by interpreting the Torah incorrectly and leading people away from the commandments.

Maimonides states that Jesus and Muhammad were not true redeemers but instruments that ultimately helped spread knowledge of the Torah to the nations — paving the way for the true Messiah — yet they themselves failed to meet the criteria for the Messiah outlined in the Torah and the Prophets.

Rambam emphasizes that the true Messiah will be a king from the house of David who compels all Israel to walk in the ways of the Torah, fights God’s wars, gathers the exiles, rebuilds the Temple, and brings universal peace and knowledge of God. Jesus did none of these things. The Rambam’s clear, systematic analysis in the Mishneh Torah shows that Christian claims about Jesus as Messiah have no foundation in the original Hebrew sources.

I will address every major claim using the method from my book, Adam, the Blueprint of Creation and the Tree of Life (Dr. Robert Carter’s four questions applied to religious claims) and Jay Smith’s historical method (earliest sources, timing, continuity, and archaeology). I will also bring the actual Talmudic and rabbinic sources that the host cited, along with the counter-tradition from our sages.

1. Claim: Isaiah 53 clearly describes an individual suffering Messiah (singular pronouns in the Dead Sea Scrolls prove it)

The host’s argument: The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) from Qumran uses singular pronouns throughout (“he was wounded,” “he was cut off,” etc.). This proves the original Jewish understanding was individual, not collective.

Response:

Example: How Christian Interpretation Changes Isaiah 53

Here is a clear, side-by-side comparison of Isaiah 53:5–6, one of the most-quoted passages. This shows the original Hebrew, a literal translation that preserves the collective voice, and how Christian theology effectively rewrites the meaning by changing who is speaking.

1. Original Hebrew (Isaiah 53:5–6)

וְהוּא מְחֹלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵנוּ מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲוֹנֹתֵינוּ
מוּסַר שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ עָלָיו וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ נִרְפָּא־לָנוּ׃
כֻּלָּנוּ כַּצֹּאן תָּעִינוּ אִישׁ לְדַרְכּוֹ פָּנִינוּ
וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ׃

2. Literal English Translation (Preserving the Original Voice)

But he was pierced because of our transgressions,
crushed because of our iniquities.
The chastisement of our peace was upon him,
and by his wound we were healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray;
each one to his own way we have turned,
and the Lord has caused to fall upon him
the iniquity of all of us.

Key point: The speakers are saying “we” and “our”. They are confessing that they went astray and that the servant suffered because of their sins. In context, the speakers are the nations (or those outside Israel) speaking about Israel (the servant).

3. How Christian Interpretation Changes the Meaning

In most Christian teaching, preaching, and study Bibles, this passage is presented as if it is only about Jesus, and the “we/our” is reassigned to mean Christians or believers:

Christian Presentation (Typical Interpretation):

“Jesus was wounded for our transgressions…
by His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray…”

What this does:

• It removes the original speakers (the nations confessing about Israel).
• It makes the reader assume they are the “we” who went astray and that Jesus is the individual servant who died for them.
• It turns a national, collective passage into a purely individual, personal atonement story.

This is not a small shift in emphasis. It fundamentally changes who is speaking and who the servant represents.

Summary of the Change

Element	Original Hebrew Meaning	Common Christian Interpretation	Effect of the Change
Who is speaking?	The nations (or those outside Israel)	Christians / believers	Removes the national context
Who is the servant?	Israel / the righteous remnant	Exclusively Jesus	Turns collective suffering into individual
“We / Our”	The nations confessing their own sin	Reassigned to Christians	Changes the identity of the guilty party
Overall message	Nations recognize Israel’s suffering role	Personal salvation through Jesus’ death	Replaces national restoration with individual atonement

This pronoun and contextual shift are one of the clearest examples of how the original Hebrew blueprint was rewritten. The text itself was not heavily altered in most translations, but the meaning and speakers were reassigned to fit a completely different theological story.

This is the same pronoun-shift tactic we see across Christian interpretation. The chapter is written from the perspective of the nations speaking about Israel as a collective servant. The “we” and “our” language throughout makes this clear:

• “Surely he has borne our griefs…”
• “We all like sheep have gone astray…”
• “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

The Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah

The Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah Scroll does contain singular forms in many places, but it is not a perfect manuscript. It has numerous scribal errors, omissions, and variants. One well-known issue is that it appears to have been buried or stored in a way consistent with damaged or erroneous scrolls containing the Divine Name (a practice reflected in later Jewish handling of sacred texts). The host presents it as pristine proof. It is not.

The passage that contains the words HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, only contains (2) HOLY, HOLY. (Isaiah 6:3)

More importantly, even if the pronouns are singular in some manuscripts, the chapter’s context (the suffering servant bringing justice to the nations, the nations confessing their error about him) has been read nationally by Jewish interpreters for centuries. Rabbi Tovia Singer and Yehuda Israel have addressed this verse by verse on their channels, showing that the national reading is the plain sense.

2. Claim: Pre-Christian sources (Talmud, Zohar, Midrash, Targum) clearly teach a suffering/dying Messiah ben Joseph who rises

The host’s argument: Sanhedrin 98b calls the Messiah a “leper scholar” from Isaiah 53. The Zohar, Midrash Rabbah, and Targum Jonathan support the idea of a suffering figure. Messiah ben Joseph is pierced, atones, and rises.

Response (using actual sources):

• Sanhedrin 98b: The passage does mention a “leper scholar” in connection with Isaiah 53:4 in one opinion. However, this is one view among many in the Talmud. The same tractate and others present multiple opinions about the Messiah. There is no consensus that Isaiah 53 refers to a dying individual Messiah who rises on the third day.
• Messiah ben Joseph: This is a real tradition in some sources (e.g., certain midrashim and later Zohar passages). However, it is not the dominant or universal view, and it is often tied to a figure who fights in the final war and dies, not necessarily the primary Davidic Messiah who brings final redemption. The host presents it as the clear pre-Christian portrait. It is one thread among several.
• Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 52:13 does say “my servant the Messiah shall prosper,” but the Targumim frequently add interpretive layers. They do not prove that the plain text of Isaiah 53 was originally understood as a dying-and-rising individual.

The host repeatedly dismisses Rashi. Yet Rashi’s reading of Isaiah 53 as Israel is consistent with earlier sources and with the national-suffering theme that runs throughout the Tanakh (e.g., the servant songs in Isaiah, the corporate nature of Israel’s covenant). Our sages did not need the Church Fathers or later trauma to read the text this way.

3. Claim: The collective reading of Isaiah 53 is a late polemic (Rashi changed after the Crusades, Maimonides disqualified a dying Messiah)

Response:

This is historically inaccurate and selective.

• The national/collective reading of the servant songs appears in sources before the major traumas the host mentions. It is consistent with the overall biblical theme of Israel suffering on behalf of the nations and being vindicated.
• Maimonides (Rambam), in the Mishneh Torah and in his Epistle to Yemen, does emphasize a victorious, non-dying Messiah in his primary portrait. However, he was responding to the specific claims of Christianity and Islam in his time. He was not “hiding” an earlier Jewish belief in a dying Messiah. Rambam also addresses claims about Jesus in his writings on Daniel and elsewhere, rejecting them on textual and historical grounds.
• The idea that the collective reading was invented as a response to Christianity ignores that Jewish interpreters were reading the text nationally long before the major debates intensified.

Rabbi Tovia Singer has documented extensively how the Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Origen, etc.) engaged in these debates and how the Christian reading developed. The host’s timeline is selective.

4. Claim: The Dead Sea Scrolls and other pre-Christian sources prove that the portrait of Jesus was already in Judaism

Response (Jay Smith method + Dr. Carter’s questions):

Using Jay Smith’s approach (earliest sources, timing, continuity, archaeology):

• The Great Isaiah Scroll is pre-Christian. That is true. However, the existence of a scroll does not prove that the interpretation the host gives it was the dominant or only Jewish reading.
• Many of the sources the host cites (certain Zohar passages, later midrashim) are post-Temple or even medieval. The host blurs the line between pre-Christian and later Jewish mystical traditions.
• Applying Dr. Robert Carter’s four questions to this claim:
  1. How did the host arrive at this unified portrait? By selecting certain passages and downplaying the diversity of opinion in the sources.
  2. What does the full picture show? The sources show multiple, sometimes conflicting, expectations. There was no single, clear “suffering-dying-rising Messiah ben Joseph who matches Jesus” portrait universally accepted before Christianity.
  3. Was there enough time and continuity? The Christian reading develops and solidifies in the centuries after Jesus, especially as the movement separates from Judaism.
  4. Does the rewrite match the original blueprint? No. The Torah’s consistent message is national covenant, repentance, and return — not inherited total depravity requiring a divine blood sacrifice.

5. Broader Pattern: The Rewrite of the Blueprint

This episode follows the same pattern I document in Adam, the Blueprint of Creation, and the Tree of Life, and in the “Two Sides of the Same Coin” series on beithashoavah.org:

• The original Hebrew blueprint teaches that humanity is created fundamentally good (99% good).
• The path to the Tree of Life (Torah) remains open through teshuvah.
• Suffering can be redemptive on a national and personal level without requiring a one-time divine sacrifice to fix “original sin.”

Christianity (and this podcast’s presentation) rewrites that blueprint. It turns national suffering into an individual’s atoning death, changes the nature of the problem (from choice and covenant to inherited depravity), and replaces the Tree of Life with the cross.

Paul’s role in this development has been addressed in my blogs and by others (including channels like History Valley). The shift toward a more Hellenistic, individual-focused soteriology has roots in the Roman world in which early Christianity developed.

The Invitation – Bring the Receipts

I am asking you directly, as I have asked others:

Please respond. Write me or record a conversation. Bring the actual Talmudic and midrashic sources in full context. Show where the plain text of Isaiah 53, read according to the rules of Hebrew grammar and the surrounding chapters, requires an individual dying-and-rising Messiah.

Rabbi Tovia Singer, Yehuda Israel, and many others have already addressed these exact claims with the sources. The collective/national reading is not a late invention forced by trauma. It is a legitimate and ancient reading of the text.

The original blueprint preserved by the Jewish people for over 3,300 years — in the text and in our lineage (Kohanim marker, Abrahamic DNA continuity) — tells a different story.

The Tree of Life was never lost. The path of teshuvah and tzedakah u’mishpat remains open.

From the Garden to Isaiah 53 – How Did We Get Here?

Next Blog coming

I am ready when you are.

— Gavriel

(Hosea 6:1–2 – “Come, and let us return to the Lord… After two days, He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up that we may live in His sight.”)

Warren Gage presents Hosea 6:1–2 as a clear gospel prophecy. Israel, the unfaithful bride, has been torn and stricken by God’s judgment. The prophet calls for national repentance (“return to the Lord”), promising that after two days God will revive them and on the third day raise them up to live in His presence. Gage sees this as the suffering-and-glory pattern fulfilled in Christ: Jesus suffers for the adulterous generation, dies, and rises on the third day to revive His people.

The Raw, Original Hebrew Text (Plain Reading)

Hosea 6:1–2 is a corporate call to national repentance and restoration:

“Come, let us return to the Lord; for He has torn us, that He may heal us; He has struck us down, and He will bind us up. After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him.”

• This is Israel speaking collectively about national revival after judgment and exile.
• The language is poetic and national — “us,” “we,” the people of Israel as a whole.
• “Third day” here is a Hebrew idiom for a short period of time after which restoration comes (similar to “in a little while”). It is not a literal prophecy of an individual Messiah dying, being buried, and rising bodily on the third day.
• Jewish tradition consistently reads this as hope for Israel’s return from exile or future national redemption, not a prediction of a dying-and-rising individual savior.

Applying the Method from Adam, the Blueprint of Creation, and the Tree of Life

1. What does the full picture actually say? The context of Hosea is God’s lawsuit against unfaithful Israel (the harlot bride). The people acknowledge their sin and express hope that repentance will bring healing. This fits the Torah’s consistent teaching: humans are created good, sin is a choice, and teshuvah (returning) always opens the path back to God. There is no inherited total depravity or requirement for a blood sacrifice of a divine Son.

2. Is this a clear prophecy of a dying-rising Messiah? No. The plain text is about the revival of Israel being revived. Gage’s reading inserts an individual Messiah’s death and resurrection that the original Hebrew does not contain. This is the same pattern we have seen across all the milestones: taking a numerical or poetic phrase (“third day”) and reading Christian theology into it.

3. The Rewrite of the Blueprint Just as scientists once claimed humans are “99% the same” as chimpanzees by ignoring the full genome data, Gage and many teachers (including Tony Robinson, starting from Luke 24) select “third day” verses and overlay a suffering-rising Messiah narrative. The original blueprint preserved in the Hebrew text teaches:

• Humanity is fundamentally good (created “very good”).
• The path to the Tree of Life (Torah itself — Proverbs 3:18) remains open through repentance.
• Restoration comes through returning to God, not through the death of a divine intermediary.

4. The Preserved Evidence Modern genetics (the Kohanim marker, Nathan Jensen’s research, Abrahamic DNA continuity) confirms that the Jewish people preserved both the textual and genetic blueprint from Abraham and Aaron. The same people who guarded Hosea for over 2,700 years never read Hosea 6:1–2 as a prophecy of an individual Messiah’s third-day resurrection.

Verdict on Milestone 17

Hosea 6:1–2 is a beautiful national call to repentance and hope of restoration after judgment. Gage turns it into a prophecy of Christ’s personal resurrection. The raw Hebrew text provides no such support.

This continues the consistent pattern: a poetic or chronological phrase is elevated into resurrection typology, while the original context emphasizes national repentance and God’s faithfulness to Israel.

The original blueprint stands. The Tree of Life remains accessible. The path of teshuvah was never lost.

The silence when asked for clear, plain-text receipts from the Tanakh continues to speak.

Hazan Gavriel ben David

Gage, W. A. (2011). Milestones to Emmaus: The Third Day Resurrection in the Old Testament (pp. 43–45). Warren A. Gage.

Milestone 16: The Third Day as the Day of Life and Death Decision for the United Monarchy in the Days of Rehoboam the King “the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.’ So he said to them, ‘Depart for three days, then return to me.’ And the people departed (1 Kgs 12:3–5). “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘come back to me the third day.’ Then the king answered the people roughly … ‘My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke’ ” (1 Kgs 12:12–14). “So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kgs 12:19). 1 Kings 12:1–19 And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had gone to Shechem to make him king. So it happened, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard it (he was still in Egypt, for he had fled from the presence of King Solomon and had been dwelling in Egypt), that they sent and called him. Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three days, then come back to me.” And the people departed. Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who stood before his father Solomon while he still lived, and he said, “How do you advise me to answer these people?” And they spoke to him, saying, “If you will be a servant to these people today, and serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever.” But he rejected the advice which the elders had given him, and consulted the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him. And he said to them, “What advice do you give? How should we answer this people who have spoken to me, saying, ‘Lighten the yoke which your father put on us’?” Then the young men who had grown up with him spoke to him, saying, “Thus you should speak to this people who have spoken to you, saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but you make it lighter on us’—thus you shall say to them: ‘My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s waist! And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!’ ” So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, “Come back to me the third day.” Then the king answered the people roughly, and rejected the advice which the elders had given him; and he spoke to them according to the advice of the young men, saying, “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!” So the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from the Lord, that He might fulfill His word, which the Lord had spoken by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat. Now when all Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, the people answered the king, saying: “What share have we in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel! Now, see to your own house, O David!” So Israel departed to their tents. But Rehoboam reigned over the children of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah. Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was in charge of the revenue; but all Israel stoned him with stones, and he died. Therefore King Rehoboam mounted his chariot in haste to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day. After the death of King Solomon, a delegation of Israel’s northern tribes appealed to the son of Solomon against his father’s “yoke,” for Solomon, like the Pharaoh of the oppression, built treasure cities (1 Kgs 10:19; cf. Exod 1:11). The new king asked for three days to consider their petitions. Rehoboam was advised by his elders to serve the people by granting their petition and relieving their grievances. They advised him to speak kindly to the people, securing their affections forever. The youths, however, advised the king to defy the grievances of the petitioners. “Tell this people, ‘My father gave you a heavy yoke, but I will add to your yoke!’ ” (1 Kgs 12:11). On the third day, the day of fateful decision, Rehoboam took the part of the younger men and defied the people, speaking harshly to them as the young men had counseled. The northern tribes, having seen that such a king ruled over them, rejected Rehoboam as king. “What portion do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse!” (1 Kgs 12:16). The kingdom was irretrievably broken by the folly of the king. The unity of God’s people died that day. The chronicler concluded his account, however, by suggesting that the revolt, although it was ordained (1 Kgs 12:24) was not approved. “So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kgs 12:19). In the fullness of time the Son of David came as the rightful King of Israel. Jesus came with a wisdom greater than Solomon, a grace greater than Rehoboam. No king had ever served the people as he did, suffering three days in the grave of death for them, all to rise in glory to be the Servant of the Lord on their behalf. “Take my yoke upon you,” he had said, “… for my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt 11:29–30). And although he spoke kindly to them on the third day, Israel rejected their inheritance in the Root of Jesse, and has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day.

Gage, W. A. (2011). Milestones to Emmaus: The Third Day Resurrection in the Old Testament (pp. 43–45). Warren A. Gage.

Luke 24 (the Road to Emmaus) is the exact passage Tony Robinson and many Messianic/Hebrew Roots teachers always started with. Jesus appears to the two disciples, rebukes them for being slow to believe, and then says:

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

Later, he explicitly says he fulfilled what was written: “that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead” (Luke 24:46).

The Core Issue: Our Torah Is Different

This is the foundational claim Gage builds his entire book upon — that the Tanakh contains clear prophecies of a suffering, dying, buried, and third-day-rising Messiah. Tony Robinson used chiastic structures and “third day” patterns across the Hebrew Bible to try to show this.

But when we apply the method in my book, Adam, The Blueprint of Creation and the Tree of Life — going back to the raw original text, looking at the full picture, and checking for rewrites — the receipts are missing.

What the Tanakh Actually Shows (Plain Reading)

• There is no single clear verse in the Torah, Prophets, or Writings that says the Messiah must die for the sins of the world and rise on the third day.
• The “third day” passages Gage highlights (Joseph, Exodus, Benjamin, Rehoboam, etc.) are narrative timing — travel, battle, consultation, decision points — not a unified resurrection doctrine.
• The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is best read in Jewish tradition as Israel collectively (the servant who suffers for the nations), rather than as an individual dying-and-rising Messiah.
• The Torah teaches that humanity was created “very good,” with access to the Tree of Life through teshuvah and obedience. It never teaches inherited total depravity requiring a blood sacrifice.

Jesus’ statement on the road to Emmaus is powerful rhetoric, but it assumes the very interpretation it claims to prove. When we go back to the original Hebrew documents and read them in context (peshat), the pattern Gage and Robinson see is not there in the text itself — it is read into the text through later Christian typology.

This is exactly the “rewrite of the blueprint” my book exposes: taking the original Hebrew story and overlaying a new narrative that the raw sources do not clearly support.

2. Where the “Fictional” Claim Comes From

The parts that are theological and not historically verifiable are:

• The virgin birth
• The miracles (walking on water, raising the dead, etc.)
• The bodily resurrection on the third day

These are faith claims. Historians cannot prove or disprove miracles — they lie outside the tools of historical

1 Kings 12 records one of the most tragic moments in Israel’s history. After Solomon’s death, the northern tribes asked Rehoboam to lighten the heavy yoke of taxes and forced labor. Rehoboam asked for three days to consider their petition. On the third day, he rejected the elders’ wise counsel to serve the people and instead followed the arrogant advice of the young men: “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke.” The northern tribes revolted, declaring, “What share have we in David?” The kingdom split permanently, and the chronicler concludes: “So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kings 12:19).

Warren Gage presents this as another “third day” life-and-death decision, foreshadowing Jesus as the greater Son of David who offers an “easy yoke” (Matt 11:29–30) and triumphs through resurrection despite rejection.

Applying the Method from Adam, the Blueprint of Creation, and the Tree of Life

We examine the raw, original Hebrew text — the full picture, not just selected parts that support a later theology.

Question 1: What does the plain text actually say? The “third day” is straightforward narrative timing. Rehoboam needed time to consult advisors. There is no death-and-resurrection sequence. No burial. No rising. The “death” is the permanent fracture of the United Kingdom. The story is about leadership failure, arrogance, and the real consequences of ignoring wise counsel. The snake (yetzer hara) is not at work here — human choices are.

Question 2: Does the full context support a resurrection type? No. This is political history. The split fulfills Ahijah’s prophecy due to Solomon’s earlier sins, but Rehoboam’s folly accelerates it. Jewish tradition (Rashi, Radak) reads it as a cautionary tale about kingship and unity — not a hidden prophecy about a future Messiah dying and rising on the third day. The text never mentions suffering-glory, a dying-rising figure, or an “easy yoke” replacing the Torah.

Question 3: Was there enough time/continuity for this interpretation? The original Hebrew blueprint preserved by the Jewish people for over 3,300 years does not contain this reading. The “third day” passages Gage highlights are consistently about travel, waiting, battle timing, or decision points — not a unified resurrection doctrine. Christianity’s typological overlay developed centuries later, much like the later doctrines of Original Sin and the full Trinity.

Question 4: Does the rewrite match the original blueprint? No. The Torah presents humanity as created “very good,” with the Tree of Life still accessible through relationship and obedience (Proverbs 3:18 calls the Torah itself a Tree of Life). The path of tzedakah u’mishpat was never lost. Gage’s reading requires inserting a death-and-resurrection pattern that the original text does not contain — a rewrite of the blueprint, just as scientists once rewrote the genome data to claim humans are “99% the same” as chimpanzees while ignoring the full picture.

The Preserved Blueprint

Modern genetics (including the Kohanim marker traceable to Aaron’s line) confirms the Jewish people preserved the original Abrahamic lineage and the textual blueprint. The same people who guarded the Hebrew Scriptures for millennia never read these “third day” passages as resurrection prophecies. The evidence — textual and genetic — matches the original story: humanity remains fundamentally good, repair is always possible, and the Tree of Life was never taken away.

Verdict on Milestone 16

Rehoboam’s third-day decision is a tragic record of human folly that split the kingdom. Gage turns it into a foreshadowing of Jesus’ resurrection and easy yoke. The raw Hebrew text provides no such support.

The pattern is consistent across Gage’s milestones: a numerical coincidence (“third day”) is elevated into typology, while the original context emphasizes human responsibility and national consequences.

The original blueprint stands. The Tree of Life remains. The path was never lost — only sometimes ignored.

The silence when asked for clear verses from the Tanakh speaks for itself.

Hazan Gavriel ben David

The Angel of the Lord and the Weight of Fabrication: Tovia Singer’s Questions, Critical Scrutiny, and the Unbroken Blueprint of Creation

2. And God’s anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of the LORD placed himself in the way for an adversary against him.—Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.—

כ״ב. וַיִּחַר־אַף אֱלֹהִים כִּי־הוֹלֵךְ הוּא וַיִּתְיַצֵּב מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְשָׂטָן לוֹ וְהוּא רֹכֵב עַל־אֲתֹנוֹ וּשְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו עִמּוֹ׃

In the Torah’s account of Balaam, the Malach Hashem—the Angel of the Lord—stands explicitly “as a satan” (adversary) in the road to block a perverse path (Numbers 22:22). God had already spoken directly to Balaam; now He deploys a messenger with a drawn sword. The donkey sees what the prophet cannot.

When the Lord opens Balaam’s eyes, the angel delivers the divine message without claiming independent divinity. This is the first explicit use of “satan” in the Torah, and it is an angel acting as God’s loyal agent—not a fallen being, not a co-equal person in the Godhead, and certainly not a pre-incarnate Jesus.

While this week’s parashat Korach centers on rebellion against God’s chosen agents and the priesthood’s role in halting plague (with Aaron standing between the living and the dead), the broader theme of divine messengers and their proper recognition resonates powerfully.

The Balaam narrative supplies the starkest illustration: the Malach Hashem can be called satan precisely because it is a sent adversary fulfilling the will of the One God. Later traditions that rewrite these passages to insert a second divine person must reckon with this plain text.

Where Is The Christian Bible’s Proof

Rabbi Tovia Singer has long posed the penetrating questions that expose the rewrite. If these appearances were pre-incarnate manifestations of the Son, why does the New Testament nowhere identify them as such? Why would the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus—saturated in Hebrew Scripture—fail to notice or proclaim this link?

Hebrews 1:5 explicitly distinguishes the Son from angels: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son’?” The Greek aggelos and Hebrew malach both mean “messenger”—human or heavenly. Prophets, judges, and angels routinely speak in the first person as the Sender (“Thus says the Lord”) because they carry the authority of the One who sent them. This is the shaliach (agency) principle, not evidence of multiple persons within God.

Consider the classic passages through this lens:

In Genesis 16 and 21, the Malach Hashem finds Hagar, promises to multiply her seed, and speaks with divine authority. Hagar responds, “You are the God who sees me.” Yet the text never has the angel claim independent deity or announce a future incarnation. Singer’s question lands: If this were the pre-incarnate Christ, why the silence on identity? The encounter reveals God through the messenger.

I Will Be With You

At the burning bush (Exodus 3), the Malach Hashem appears in the flame; then “the Lord saw… God called to him from the bush.” The text itself maintains a distinction even as it shows divine presence. Fluidity between the angel and the Lord reflects theophany or representative speech, not a second person of a later Trinity.

Samson, the Judge of Israel

In Judges 6, the angel appears to Gideon, consumes the offering with fire, and departs. Gideon fears he has “seen the angel of the Lord face to face” and builds an altar to Hashem. In Judges 13, the angel announces Samson’s birth to Manoah’s wife, refuses to reveal his name (“it is wonderful”), ascends in the altar flame, and the couple realizes they have seen a divine messenger.

They fear death—not because they saw a second God, but because encountering the divine realm through its agent is overwhelming. Again, Singer asks: Where in these texts or in the New Testament does anyone declare, “This was the eternal Son planning His incarnation”?

Angels Speak as God in the Hebrew Text

Missionaries weaponize these passages by insisting that, because the angel sometimes speaks as God or is addressed with divine attributes, the angel must be Jesus. This eisegesis ignores the consistent biblical pattern of agency.

It also ignores early Jewish sources (Targumim, Talmudic references to exalted messengers such as Metatron) that treat the Malach Hashem as a created or semi-created agent of the One God, not as a member of the Godhead. The identification with Jesus emerges later in patristic writings, serving to develop Christology rather than arising from the plain Hebrew text.

Always Speak The Truth

Here, Mark Twain’s insight becomes devastatingly relevant. Twain observed that “if you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” Once a fabrication is introduced—that every Malach Hashem is secretly the pre-incarnate Christ—the interpreter is forced into an endless cycle of additional fabrications to maintain consistency. One must now “remember” and defend:

• Why does the Shema and the entire Torah insist on absolute oneness without any hint of eternal plurality within God?
• Why does no Second Temple Jewish source clearly teach that the angel appearances were a second divine person planning to become flesh?
• Why Jesus and the New Testament authors remain silent about this supposed identity, never saying “I was the angel who appeared to Hagar, Moses, Gideon, or Manoah.”
• Why does God “send” the angel in some texts if the angel is God the Son?
• Why does the Balaam story explicitly present the angel as a subordinate adversary sent by God?

Rewriting the Torah Code- Warning

Each patch requires further patches—Trinity doctrine, eternal generation, hypostatic union, distinctions between “economic” and “immanent” Trinity—until the original elegant code of the Torah is buried under a superstructure of explanations.

The liar’s burden grows heavier with every defense. Textual variants, historical development, and logical tensions must be continually managed. The simple truth—that these are instances of divine communication through agents, theophanies of the One God’s presence (kavod or Shechinah), or prophetic speech—requires no such memory work or contortions.

Jay Smith’s method of rigorous historical and textual scrutiny, honed through the examination of other traditions, applies directly here. Just as critical examination reveals anachronisms, later accretions, and source problems in claims about other scriptures, it reveals that the christophany reading of the Malach Hashem is largely absent from the earliest strata and serves later theological needs. The Hebrew text’s integrity, the archaeological record of Israel’s developing (yet fiercely guarded) monotheism, and the New Testament’s own silence all testify against the rewrite.

The Spoken Word

This brings us to the Blueprint of Creation. The Torah presents a unified divine order in which the One God creates through speech and word, establishing a patterned hierarchy—echoed in the Tree of Life as a symbol of ordered emanations, attributes, and agents under the singular Source. Messengers (malachim) fit naturally within this blueprint as extensions of divine will and presence, not as fractures in the Godhead or pre-incarnate second persons.

The “code” is elegant: One Author, direct yet mediated interaction, free will tested by adversarial agents who remain loyal servants (as in the Balaam “satan”), and a creation whose complexity reflects the unity of its Source. Rewriting the Malach Hashem passages to insert a co-equal divine person disrupts this blueprint, introducing unnecessary complexity and theological debt that must be repaid with endless additional doctrines.

The fabrication does not illuminate the text; it obscures the original code. It places the interpreter in precisely the position Twain described—burdened with remembering and reconciling contradictions that the plain reading never generates. Rabbi Tovia Singer’s questions cut through the overlay: the texts themselves, read in their Hebrew context and within Jewish interpretive tradition, present themselves as loyal messengers of the One God. The Blueprint stands intact when we refuse to rewrite it.

Malach Hashem is The Satan

Returning to the original code restores both intellectual honesty and spiritual clarity. In Korach, rebellion against God’s agents brings destruction; proper recognition of divine order brings life. In Balak, the Malach Hashem called Satan to act to prevent sin and protect blessing.

The truth does not require us to remember a web of later inventions. It simply invites us to see what the text has always shown: the One God communicates, tests, protects, and reveals—sometimes through messengers who speak with His authority but remain exactly what the Hebrew declares: malach Hashem, the Angel of the Lord.

Refined Focus on Numbers 22:22 – The Malach Hashem as “Satan” (Adversary)

In Numbers 22:22, we read: “And God’s anger was kindled because he [Balaam] went; and the angel of the LORD placed himself in the way for an adversary [לְשָׂטָן לוֹ – le-satan lo] against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.”

This is the first appearance of the root שׂטן (satan) in the Torah—not as a proper name for a cosmic rebel, but as a functional description of a loyal Malach Hashem. God, already having spoken directly to Balaam, dispatches His messenger to block the prophet’s perverse path. The donkey sees the angel with a drawn sword; Balaam does not—until the Lord opens his eyes.

The angel then speaks with divine authority, yet remains clearly sent: “I have come forth to oppose you because your way is perverse before me” (v. 32). The Malach acts as God’s agent to protect Israel’s blessing and humble the would-be curser. Far from an independent power or second divine person, this “satan” is a subordinate instrument executing the singular will of YHVH.

Rabbi Tovia Singer’s incisive questions dismantle missionary overlays here. If this Malach Hashem were the pre-incarnate Christ (as some claim for Angel of the Lord passages), why does the text distinguish God’s anger and sending action from the angel’s role?

Why no self-revelation as the coming Messiah or Son? Why does the New Testament remain silent on Jesus identifying with this (or any) Malach Hashem appearance? Hebrews 1:5 reinforces the distinction: God never said to any angel, “You are My Son.”

The Angel Of Hashem

The malach is precisely what the Hebrew declares—a messenger (malach = sent one), capable of bearing divine authority representationally without being the Sender Himself. This is the biblical principle of shaliach (agency): the ambassador speaks and acts in the name of the king, yet remains distinct.

Missionaries weaponize such texts by seizing on moments where the angel speaks in the first person or is linked to divine action, declaring, “See! This must be Jesus!” This reading rewrites the original code. It forces the insertion of later Trinitarian categories into a strictly monotheistic narrative.

The Jay Smith Historical Critical Method

Apply Jay Smith’s rigorous historical-critical method—scrutinizing sources, anachronisms, and developmental layers—and the christophany interpretation collapses. It is a post-biblical construct, unattested in the plain sense, Second Temple sources, or the New Testament itself.

The earliest Jewish interpretive tradition (Targums, Midrash, Rashi) consistently sees the Malach Hashem as the divine presence mediated through an agent or the Shechinah/kavod, never as a co-equal, eternal Son.

Mark Twain’s insight exposes the cost of this fabrication: “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” Once you rewrite the Malach Hashem as Jesus across multiple passages, you enter the liar’s maze. You must perpetually “remember” and patch:

• How does this align with the Shema’s absolute oneness?
• Why does God “send” the angel if the angel is God the Son?
• The NT’s silence on these supposed appearances.
• The Balaam story’s explicit subordination of the “satan” angel to the One who sent him.

Each patch breeds more explanations—hypostatic union, economic Trinity distinctions, claims of progressive revelation—until the elegant simplicity of Torah is obscured. Truth needs no such scaffolding.

The Tree Of Life: The Blueprint

Within the Blueprint of Creation (as developed in Adam, the Blueprint of Creation, and the Tree of Life), this verse shines. The Torah reveals a unified divine order: One God speaks creation into being through word and pattern (the Tree of Life as a fractal blueprint of emanations, hierarchies, and agents).

Malachim belong to this ordered administration—extensions of divine will, not fractures in the Godhead. The Balaam “satan” perfectly illustrates: a sent adversary maintaining the integrity of blessing and covenant against human perversity.

Rewriting this as a second divine person introduces a bug into the code, complicating what was designed as unified and coherent—much like a mutation disrupting the elegant information flow in DNA or the ordered complexity of quantum fields that mirror divine speech.

In the context of Parashat Korach (this week) and the coming Balak, the lesson is potent. Rebellion against God’s appointed agents (Moses/Aaron) leads to destruction; proper recognition of divine order—whether high priests stopping plague or a Malach blocking curses—brings life and blessing. The Malach Hashem called satan in 22:22 is no exception. It is God’s loyal servant opposing evil intent, preserving the blueprint intact.

This verse alone refutes the rewrite. The code stands: One God, faithful messengers, unbroken creation pattern. As Singer teaches, returning to the plain Hebrew frees us from the burden of fabricated memory. The truth simply is.

Shabbat Shalom

---

Hazan Gavriel ben David

The Torah’s Blueprint

In the Torah’s blueprint of creation—where Adam is the archetypal vessel, and the Tree of Life maps the emotional, psychological, and anatomical architecture of the soul—silence is not emptiness. It is the fire that forges the kli, the holy vessel capable of holding and transmitting divine light.

The 38 years of narrative silence in Parashat Chukat, the shared theodicy question of Moses and David, the inner battle mapped in Pirkei Avot, and the Midrashic visions of hidden justice all converge on one transformative truth: every great soul must pass through the midbar (wilderness) to be refined into a vessel of worship. Only then can we emerge, like the new generation, digging our own wells and singing our own song.

The Torah Blueprint and the Inner Wilderness

Torah presents itself as the master blueprint of existence. Just as the physical body has form and function, the soul has emotional and psychological layers structured by the Tree of Life. Words create worlds, yet silence shapes the vessel that can receive and reveal them.

Pirkei Avot serves as the practical manual for this inner refinement: “Who is wise? One who learns from every person.” “Make a fence around the Torah.” Control of speech, desire, and ego—the very impulses that doomed the desert generation—become the disciplines that carve the kli.

The 38 years of silence following the spies’ and Korach’s rebellions (Numbers 13–19 to 20) illustrate the process. The first generation’s dramatic sins and complaints filled the early narrative. Then Torah falls quiet. No major prophecies or upheavals are recorded.

The Sages teach this was a period of divine distance and arrested development—a holding pattern in which the rebellious generation died out. What appeared as absence was actually the hidden work of refinement. The midbar stripped away noise so the soul could be reshaped.

As Rabbi Chaim Richman teaches in his Chukat shiur, the silence itself testifies: “There’s nothing to see here.” The upheavals of the first two years had done their work; now came the quiet forging.

All great people require this wilderness experience. Moses spent forty years in Midian before the burning bush. David tended sheep in silent fields, then hid in caves and deserts while fleeing Saul. These were not wasted years—they were the kiln in which the vessel was formed.

Silence as Worship and the Inner Battle

The greatest battle is the one within. Silence is the greatest form of worship because it forces us to confront that battle without distraction. In the midbar, there are no golden calves or dramatic rebellions to blame. There is only manna, movement, and the daily choice to trust or complain. Pirkei Avot trains us for this: the inner work of refining character turns suffering into service and questions into vessels of deeper faith.

David lived this truth. As shepherd, fugitive, and king-in-waiting, he endured long seasons of silence. In caves and wilderness strongholds, he composed psalms that wrestle with the same question Moses voiced: Why do the wicked prosper while the righteous suffer? His psalms (37, 39, 49, and others) move from raw observation of injustice to sanctuary-born trust: “Until I went into the sanctuary of God, then understood their end.”

Moses’ Question and the Midrash of Hidden Justice

Moses asked directly (Exodus 33 and expanded in Talmud Berachot 7a): “Master of the Universe, why do the righteous prosper, the righteous suffer, the wicked prosper, and the wicked suffer?”

God’s answer categorizes four types and reveals that justice is not always visible in this world. The completely righteous receive reward here; the righteous with some sin suffer to atone and merit greater reward later. The wicked with some merit prosper here and receive full punishment later. The completely wicked suffer here. Full understanding belongs to the World to Come.

A traditional Midrashic teaching (in the spirit of Berachot 7a and later aggadah on gilgul) gives a vivid illustration. Moses sees a vision: a man on a horse watches as another man is robbed and killed—an apparent injustice. Distressed, Moses is shown the continuation. Earlier, a young man and his father were robbed; the father was killed.

The surviving son grows up to become the robber/killer in the later scene. What looked like random evil was, in fact, precise rectification across lives or generations. The “wicked” man on the horse was settling an old account; the victim’s soul was balancing a prior wrong. Apparent silence or injustice hides the perfect accounting of divine justice.

These teachings do not remove the pain of suffering or the sting of the question. They deepen the vessel. Silence before the mystery becomes worship because it acknowledges that the full blueprint is larger than our sight.

From Silence to Song: The New Generation in Chukat

Parashat Chukat marks the turning point. After 38 years of quiet, the old leadership passes—Miriam dies, her well dries up, and Aaron’s death is decreed. The new generation must now dig for water. They do not wait passively; they excavate. Then they sing: “Then Israel sang this song…” (Numbers 21). Unlike the Song at the Sea led by Moses, this is their own song—proactive, mature worship.

The silence prepared them. The hidden years refined the vessel. Now the kli can hold living water and pour it out in song. Rabbi Richman highlights this shift: the new generation proactively seeks God’s presence. They issue a challenge and a model for our time—after seasons of silence or holding patterns, we are called to dig our own wells and sing our own song.

Creating the Vessel of Worship

All these threads weave into one path:

• Silence strips away ego and noise, creating space in the vessel.
• The inner battle (Pirkei Avot) shapes and purifies it.
• The wilderness (midbar) is the fire that hardens the clay.
• The question of justice (Moses, David, the Midrash) stretches the vessel to hold mystery and trust.
• The blueprint (Torah as Tree of Life) gives the design.
• Proactive emergence (Chukat’s new generation) fills the vessel with living service—digging wells, singing songs, teaching Torah, ministering in prisons, creating content, and preparing for redemption.

Conclusion: The Call to Forge the Vessel

Every generation and every soul is invited into the midbar not as punishment but as preparation. The 38 years of Torah silence, Moses’ and David’s questions, the Midrashic visions of hidden justice, and Pirkei Avot’s disciplines are not abstract teachings—they are the blueprint for creating a vessel of worship.

Embrace your wilderness seasons. Let silence do its refining work. Wrestle honestly with the question of justice, then release it into trust. Study Pirkei Avot as daily soul-sculpting. When the time comes, dig your own well and sing your own song—proactively, maturely, as the new generation.

In doing so, you become the vessel: a kli capable of holding divine presence and pouring it into a world hungry for redemption. The old patterns fall away. The hidden years bear fruit. And the song that rises is not borrowed—it is yours, offered back to the One who formed the vessel in the first place.

May we all merit to emerge from our midbar seasons refined, singing, and ready.

Shabbat Shalom.

Hazan Gavriel ben David

38 Years of Silence in the Torah

The “38 years of silence” in the Torah refers to a notable gap in the biblical narrative of the Israelites’ 40 years in the wilderness (midbar), primarily in the Book of Numbers (Bamidbar).

• The Israelites left Egypt, received the Torah at Sinai, and spent roughly the first 1–2 years with detailed accounts of events: the Exodus, the Sinai revelation, Tabernacle construction, the organization of the camp, and initial journeys (from Exodus through early Numbers).
• The incident of the spies (meraglim) occurs in Numbers 13–14 (around the second year after the Exodus). The people’s lack of faith leads to God’s decree that the adult generation (except Joshua and Caleb) would die in the wilderness over 40 years, one year for each day the spies spent in the land (Numbers 14:33–34).
• After events around Kadesh Barnea (including Korach’s rebellion in Numbers 16–17 and the red heifer in Numbers 19), the narrative jumps forward dramatically. Numbers 20 picks up near the end of the 40 years, with Miriam’s death, the incident at Meribah, Aaron’s death, and the final journeys.
• Deuteronomy 2:14 explicitly states: From the time they left Kadesh Barnea until they crossed the Zered Valley was 38 years—marking the period in which the fighting men of that generation perished.

This creates an apparent “silence” or omission of ~37–38 years of detailed storytelling (the exact count varies slightly among commentators due to whether the first and last years are included or excluded).

Why the Silence? Traditional and Commentarial Explanations

Commentators and scholars offer several insights into this narrative gap:

• Punishment and a “New Generation”: The Torah focuses on the rebellious first generation’s dramatic sins and judgments early on. The 38 years represent the time for that generation to pass away, so the story shifts to the new generation ready to enter the Land. Rashi and others note that phrases such as “the whole congregation” in Numbers 20 refer to the renewed people. The omission underscores divine distance or disapproval during this punitive wandering.
• Relative Peace and Normality: After intense early rebellions (Golden Calf, spies, Korach—thousands died), the people may have settled into routine life: gathering manna, raising families, and moving camps. With the major upheavals over, there were fewer dramatic incidents worth recording in such detail. Numbers 33 lists the journey stops, but little narrative fills the middle.
• Lessons in Affliction and Growth: Deuteronomy 8:2–5 describes the 40 years as a time of testing, hunger (manna as daily provision), and dependence on God. The silence itself teaches: the desert forged resilience, self-governance, and covenantal identity through hardship, uncertainty, and miracles (clothes/shoes that didn’t wear out, etc.). It prepared them for conquest and nationhood. Some see Moses’ own prophetic connection as affected during this period.
• Chronological Reconciliation: The total 40 years includes the initial period before/around the spies (~1–2 years) plus the 38 years of wandering until the final push into the Land. Commentators like Rashi detail the stages of journeys: 14 in year 1, 20 during the 38 “silent” years, and 8 in the last year.

Broader Significance

This gap isn’t unique—Scripture often condenses or omits periods of “ordinary” life to highlight key theological moments. It contrasts with the detailed early wanderings and the climactic final year (battles, Balaam, etc.). For readers like you, with deep Torah focus on chiastic structures, gematria, archaeology, and hidden patterns, it invites reflection on divine pedagogy: silence can teach as much as speech, turning punishment into formation of a covenant people worthy of the Land.

Holding Patterns

The Narrative Jump: Parashat Chukat (Numbers 19–21, read this Shabbat in Israel) picks up after the rebellions of the spies and Korach. Torah leaps forward ~38 years. The first generation has largely died off in the wilderness as decreed. Now we meet the new generation poised to enter the Land. Why the Silence? Torah says almost nothing about those decades. No major incidents, prophecies, or dramas are recorded.

Rabbi Richman describes it as a “divine boycott” or holding pattern—arrested development due to the prior generation’s failings and resulting divine distance/wrath. They were in a rut of their own making, with little noteworthy spiritual progress to chronicle. The Shift in Chukat: Miriam dies → Miriam’s Well (which accompanied them miraculously) dries up. The people must now actively dig for water.

This leads to the Song of the Well (Numbers 21), sung by Israel proactively (“Then Israel sang…”), unlike the earlier Song of the Sea led by Moshe. It symbolizes the new generation stepping up, taking initiative, and seeking God’s presence actively rather than passively. Leadership Transition: Miriam, Aaron (and soon Moshe’s decree) pass or step back.

The old leadership that nurtured the Exodus generation gives way. The new one must “sing their own song”—mature, proactive service in the world. Lesson for Us: This challenges us today. After periods of silence, hardship, or “holding patterns” (personal or national), it’s time to grow up, dig our own wells, and sing our own proactive song of connection to Hashem—especially in redemption-era times.

Silence as Worship and Inner Refinement

Your reference to the idea that “Silence is the greatest form of worship” (echoing themes in Pirkei Avot and broader Mussar/Kabbalistic thought) captures the essence of that wilderness gap. The Torah’s narrative silence isn’t emptiness—it’s a forge. The first generation’s drama-filled years gave way to a quieter crucible where the real battle—the internal one—played out. No grand miracles or rebellions to distract; just daily manna, moving camps, and the slow work of refining the soul.

Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) is indeed the manual for this inner work:

• “Who is wise? One who learns from every person.” (Avot 4:1)
• “Be meticulous in judgment, raise many students, and make a fence around the Torah.” (Avot 1:1)
• Emphasis on controlling speech, anger, and desire—the very impulses that doomed the desert generation.

The midbar strips away externals. It’s where ego, doubt, and slavery-mindset die so the free soul can emerge. Every great figure—Moses (40 days on Sinai), Elijah, the prophets, and even the Avot themselves—had their wilderness. It’s the anatomical/psychological blueprint you teach so powerfully: the Tree of Life as inner architecture, where yetzer hara (inner battle) meets refinement, and silence allows the divine spark to speak.

Torah as Blueprint

The Torah, as an emotional, psychological, and anatomical blueprint, resonates deeply here. The 38 “silent” years model how creation works: words (or their absence) shape worlds. The old generation spoke of rebellion and complaint; the new one learns to sing proactively. That shift from reactive to active worship—digging the well, composing their own song—is the maturation the midbar demands. It’s gilgul on a national scale: what doesn’t kill you (or the generation) forges the vessel for redemption.

Hazan Gavriel ben David

In this follow-up to Parts 1 and 2, we continue applying Dr. Jay Smith’s rigorous historical-critical method to both Christianity and Islam. The latest video from History Valley features Dr. Jay Smith discussing the work of a French revisionist scholar. This scholar argues that a specific Jewish-Christian group played a major role in the formation of the Quran.

This strengthens the central thesis of my book, Adam, The Blueprint of Creation and The Tree of Life: there is only one original blueprint given to Adam at creation. This code was preserved through the Torah and the Jewish people as the firstborn. Both Christianity and Islam represent later human constructions built upon — or diverging from — that foundational code.

Key Points from the Video

The discussion centers on French revisionist scholarship that builds on the German Inarah School (Lüling, Luxenberg). The French scholar proposes that a particular Jewish-Christian community — likely Ebionite or similar Torah-observant groups — was instrumental in shaping the early Quranic material.

This aligns with what my good friend Avi Lipkin taught me starting in 2005. There are traditions that the Quran was influenced by a Catholic Priest and an Ebionite Rabbi (a follower of Jesus who maintained Jewish practices). The video explores how this group’s liturgical texts, hymns, and monotheistic teachings were later Arabized and reframed into the Islamic narrative.

Dr. Jay Smith connects this to his broader argument. He states the Quran shows heavy dependence on pre-Islamic Christian and Jewish-Christian sources, especially Syriac Aramaic Christian hymns and lectionaries. When read with Syriac grammar and vocabulary in mind, many passages reveal Christian liturgical origins rather than original Arabic revelation.

Applying Jay Smith’s Method Consistently

Jay Smith demands early evidence, independent corroboration, and transparency about textual layers. When we apply this standard:

• Islam: Shows clear signs of borrowing and reworking earlier Christian material (as the French and German scholars demonstrate).
• Christianity: Also shows layers of development. Paul’s letters and the Gospels reflect adaptation in a pagan Roman world. Later doctrines (e.g., at Nicaea) were formalized without the original Jewish keepers of the blueprint.

Both traditions took from the Hebrew source and created new systems. They truly are two sides of the same coin.

Return to the Original Blueprint

Rabbi David Fohrman (A Book Like No Other) shows that the Ten Commandments at Sinai revealed principles already present in Genesis. The Torah speaks to all humanity — to Adam — as in Leviticus 18:5:

“You shall therefore keep My statutes and My rules, by which a man (Adam) shall live.”

Eternal life is promised in Genesis 3:22 by reaching out to the Tree of Life — the original code — not through later intermediaries or replacement systems.

Rabbi Ephraim Palvanov rightly highlights the Noahide laws (derived from Genesis 2:24 and 9:6) as part of the shared universal foundation. However, when traditions overlay new covenants and figures, they move away from the single Tree of Life.

Conclusion

The French revisionist work discussed in the video, combined with Avi Lipkin’s teachings, Jay Smith’s analysis, and the German scholars, reveals the deep interconnections between Christianity and Islam. Both are derivative systems built on earlier material from the Hebrew root.

The call remains: return to the one original blueprint given to Adam and preserved by the Jewish people. As Isaiah 56 promises, the stranger who joins himself to the Lord can fully partake in the Tree of Life.

Rabbi David Fohrman, in his powerful series A Book Like No Other, forces us to face the elephant in the room with three simple but explosive questions that most people never dare to ask: Why are there two trees in the Garden of Eden? What is the purpose of those two trees? And why does the Torah make such a big deal about them?

These are not minor details. They strike at the very heart of the original blueprint given to Adam. If we cannot answer these questions honestly, we have no business claiming to understand the difference between the Tree of Life — the path to eternal life clearly promised in Genesis 3:22 — and the Tree of Knowledge, which led to death. The Torah is screaming at us from the very first pages of creation, yet most of the world has ignored the elephant standing right in front of them. Are you willing to look?

Recommended Resources:

• Jay Smith lectures and collaborations with French/German revisionists
• Avi Lipkin’s teachings on Islam
• Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg’s works
• Rabbi Tovia Singer and Rabbi Ephraim Palvanov’s lectures
• My book, Adam, The Blueprint of Creation and The Tree of Life

This series continues to build the case for returning to the pure original code.

Hazan Gavriel ben David

In an era when seekers like Graham Hancock challenge the mainstream narrative of human history—uncovering evidence of a sophisticated lost civilization that was wiped out by a global cataclysm around 12,800 years ago during the Younger Dryas—the Torah and Jewish tradition offer a profound, unifying framework.

Hancock’s explorations, drawing on ancient myths, archaeology, and forgotten knowledge preserved in texts like Hamlet’s Mill by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend, resonate deeply with the biblical account of humanity’s origins, decline, and ultimate redemption.

This essay bridges Hancock’s audience—those intrigued by alternative histories, ancient wisdom, psychedelics, consciousness, and lost civilizations—with the Torah’s perspective. It centers on Adam, the Blueprint of Creation, and the Tree of Life, the book by Hazan Gavriel ben David, which integrates Torah, science, archaeology, and the Tree of Life as the divine blueprint for creation, human potential, and return.

Far from conflicting with Hancock’s findings, the Torah illuminates them: we are all brothers and cousins through DNA, descending from a singular, exalted Adam whose generations have drifted farther from Hashem (God), yet the path back is encoded in the eternal Tree of Life.

National Revelation at Sinai, Torah codes, Haim Shore’s numerical research, Matthew LaCroix’s discoveries of shared ancient codes, archaeology, and the Jewish people’s unbroken oral tradition confirm this ancient wisdom.

The Fall from Adam: Greatest Human to Generational Decline

The Torah describes Adam not as a Neanderthal hunter-gatherer but as the pinnacle of creation—formed in the image of God, pure light (tzelem Elohim), infused with divine breath (nishmat chayim), and tasked with tending the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1-2).

In Adam, the Blueprint of Creation and the Tree of Life, this is understood as the ultimate human blueprint: Adam embodied perfect harmony with the Tree of Life, which represents divine knowledge, immortality, and interconnectedness. His sin—eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil—initiated separation, introducing toil, mortality, and exile.

This aligns with Hancock’s view of a golden age of advanced, non-violent civilization that devolved. Myths worldwide, as detailed in Hamlet’s Mill, encode astronomical knowledge of precession and cataclysms, suggesting survivors of an earlier epoch passed down fragmented wisdom.

The Torah specifies: post-Flood, human lifespans shortened dramatically (from Methuselah’s 969 years to modern brevity), symbolizing spiritual and perhaps cognitive decline. Each generation drifts farther from Hashem’s direct presence, mirroring Hancock’s narrative of lost knowledge after the Ice Age comet impacts.

Human DNA Proves The Torah

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson’s groundbreaking Traced: Human DNA’s Big Surprise provides genetic confirmation. Using Y-chromosome data, Jeanson traces nearly all modern male lineages back to a recent common ancestor, consistent with a biblical timeframe dating back to Noah (and ultimately Adam).

His research reveals humanity as one extended family: “brothers and cousins” sharing deep genetic connections across continents, with migration patterns echoing post-Flood dispersals (Genesis 10, the Table of Nations). Jeanson’s work reframes race and ethnicity not as divisions but as branches of a single tree—literally fulfilling the Torah’s vision of kol Yisrael arevim zeh la-zeh (all Israel responsible for one another), extended to all humanity.

This DNA “Rosetta Stone” shows that we are not products of isolated evolution but descendants of a single point of origin, with genetic diversity arising rapidly post-cataclysm. It counters mainstream timelines, supporting the Torah’s compressed history and Hancock’s call to reconsider “Sages,” ancients who encoded sophisticated astronomy and engineering.

The Tree of Life as the Answer: Blueprint for Redemption

The Tree of Life (Etz Chaim) stands as the central answer. In the user’s book, it is the architectural and spiritual blueprint of creation—mirroring DNA’s double helix, quantum interconnectedness, and the sefirot of Kabbalah. Adam’s access to it represented unity with Hashem; exile barred it, leading to the decline Hancock describes.

Yet, the Torah promises restoration. The Messianic Age (Yemot HaMashiach) is the return to this Tree: universal knowledge of God (“the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Hashem as the waters cover the sea,” Isaiah 11:9), the ingathering of exiles, the resurrection, and the rebuilding of the Temple.

Hancock’s audience, often exploring consciousness through ayahuasca or ancient sites like Göbekli Tepe, will recognize parallels. The Tree encodes frequencies, gematria, and intertextual “hyperlinks” that modern science is only beginning to grasp. It offers what fragmented myths preserve: a path inward to heal our species’ amnesia.

Jewish Evidences: Torah Codes, DNA, Archaeology, and National Revelation

Torah Codes and Haim Shore’s Research: Equidistant letter sequences (ELS) in the Torah reveal statistically improbable patterns, including names, events, and scientific correlations. Professor Haim Shore’s work in Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew demonstrates that Hebrew word numerical values (gematria) align with physical properties—planetary masses, orbital moments, atomic weights, and more—with extraordinary statistical significance.

For instance, correlations between biblical terms and astronomical or biological constants suggest divine encoding rather than coincidence. Shore’s analyses (19+ rigorous statistical tests) affirm the Torah’s non-human origin, providing mathematical proof that complements Hancock’s encoded myths in Hamlet’s Mill.

This numeric elegance echoes the precision Hancock admires in the Great Pyramid—alignments, earth dimensions scaled 1:43,200—suggesting inherited knowledge from a pre-cataclysm source, preserved and refined in the Torah.

Tree Like Symbols 49,786 – The Tree Of Life

Matthew LaCroix’s Work and Shared Ancient Codes: Researchers like Matthew LaCroix document recurring architectural and symbolic codes across distant sites (Turkey’s Lake Van/Ararat region, Egypt, Peru, Bolivia, Cambodia). These point to the legacy of a unified lost civilization—megalithic precision, serpent motifs, and tree-like symbols.

The Jewish oral tradition (Torah she-be’al peh) and archaeological finds (e.g., Vendyl Jones’ Qumran- and Temple-related discoveries) confirm the transmission. The Land of Israel, with its continuous Jewish presence despite exiles, serves as a living witness: sites like the City of David, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Temple Mount anchor biblical history in verifiable strata, countering dismissals of “myth.”

Archaeology and National Revelation: Unlike other ancient claims, the Torah’s Sinai Revelation was a national event—witnessed by millions, transmitted unbroken through generations. This public miracle distinguishes it, as Maimonides noted. Archaeology increasingly supports: Exodus-era evidence (debated but growing via Jeanson-linked DNA and sites), chiastic structures in Tanakh mirroring advanced literary design, and gematria revealing hidden layers. Hancock’s cataclysm myths parallel Noah’s Flood, with survivors (Noah’s family) repopulating and preserving wisdom—a pattern echoed in Jewish oral traditions of pre-Flood knowledge.

The Jewish people’s endurance—returning to the Land after millennia—fulfills prophecies (Ezekiel 36-37) and embodies the oral tradition’s role in safeguarding what Hancock seeks: authentic connection to the ancients. Crypto-Jewish lineages and DNA (e.g., the Cohen Modal Haplotype J-FT235823, which traces priestly lines) further link modern Jews to ancient roots, extending brotherhood to all via Jeanson.

The Messianic Age: Awakening and Return

The Messianic Age is not utopian fantasy but the rectification (tikkun) of Adam’s fall. Prophets describe ingathering, peace (“swords into plowshares,” Isaiah 2), Temple rebuilding, and knowledge explosion. In the user’s framework, this reactivates the Tree of Life blueprint: DNA as divine code, frequencies aligning creation, science validating Torah (quantum observer effects mirroring “words create worlds”).

For Hancock’s audience: Psychedelic visions of unity, ancient site energies, and calls for a shift in consciousness align with Torah’s direct connection to God, Shabbat harmony, and ahavat Yisrael (love of neighbor extended universally). The cataclysm warning—”we brought this upon ourselves”—mirrors Torah’s moral causality; today’s AI/machine “gods,” environmental crises, and divisions signal the need for return.

Jeanson’s family tree dissolves divisions; Shore’s math reveals design; LaCroix’s codes show shared inheritance; archaeology and Revelation ground it in history. The oral tradition—passed from Sinai through sages—preserves what pyramids and myths hint at: humanity’s divine potential.

Conclusion: The Tree Awaits

As Graham Hancock urges us to rethink our amnesia, the Torah, Adam, the Blueprint of Creation, and the Tree of Life provide the map and the vehicle. We are all one family from Adam, declining yet redeemable. The Messianic Age dawns as we reclaim the Tree—through Torah study, ethical action (“receipts” over words), scientific integration, and ingathering. Jewish evidence—codes, DNA, land, tradition—confirms Graham’s intuitions while offering the complete blueprint.

Humanity stands at the threshold. Will we repeat the fall or ascend? The prophets assure us: “Return to Me, and I will return to you” (Malachi 3:7). In the Tree of Life, the lost civilization’s wisdom finds its eternal home, and the greatest of Adam’s legacies is fulfilled in us all.

1. Hancock, Graham. Interview on The Diary of a CEO, June 2026. Discusses the lost civilization and the Younger Dryas cataclysm. [Link to video].
2. Jeanson, Nathaniel T. Traced: Human DNA’s Big Surprise. Master Books, 2022. Y-chromosome evidence for recent origins and human unity.
3. Shore, Haim. Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew. Numerical correlations proving divine origin. Free samples: [haimshore.blog].
4. LaCroix, Matthew. Works on ancient codes in The Missing Key and explorations in Anatolia/Egypt. [thestageoftime.com].
5. Ben David, Gavriel. Adam, the Blueprint of Creation and the Tree of Life. Integrates Torah with science/archaeology (2nd ed. in progress). beithashoavah.org.
6. de Santillana, Giorgio & von Dechend, Hertha. Hamlet’s Mill. Mythic encoding of precision.

Additional references: Vendyl Jones archaeology, Dead Sea Scrolls, Jeanson Traced DNA studies, gematria resources. Optimize with primary keywords: “Messianic Age Torah”, “Graham Hancock Jewish perspective”, “Dr. Jeanson DNA Torah”, “Tree of Life blueprint”, “Haim Shore Torah codes”. Meta: “Essay bridging alternative history and Torah evidence for redemption.” Internal links to book chapters, website study guides.

Hazan Gavriel ben David

What if your grandparents were 49,000 years old? Then things should not be the way they are. What if the first human, Adam, received the complete blueprint of creation — the Tree of Life itself — breathed directly into him by Hashem? That same blueprint echoes across the oldest monolithic civilizations, carved into their monuments as Matthew LaCroix shows. It was passed to Noah, to Abraham, and eventually to the mixed multitude that stood at Sinai.

This is the living Torah. Not dusty rules, but the operating system of reality — the science of becoming who you were meant to be. It reveals how connection to Hashem expands your capacity to create, to function at the highest level, and to partner in fixing a broken world.

Yet things are not the way they should be.

The Cosmic Shemitah and Fresh Revelation

Each 7,000-year cycle gives a generation 6,000 years to perform its tikkun. The Torah is revealed anew, tailored to that era’s challenges and sefirot. Our generation hungers for this living blueprint — one that integrates science, DNA, frequencies, sacred geometry, and ancient evidence — rather than the rote recitation of the Talmud or Gemara, which feels disconnected from daily life.

What Does It Mean to Be Chosen?

In the conversation, Rabbi Brics and Rabbi Dubov unpacked this powerfully. It is not racism. Judaism is not a race — we span every shade, ethnicity, and background: Yemenite, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Ethiopian, and more. Converts and the mixed multitude from Egypt became fully Yisrael at Sinai. As Rabbi Dubov emphasized, we are a family.

The Story of Chosenness begins in the book of Genesis. The story of Cain and Abel, “And He turned to Abel and to his offering.”

The church taught me that the Second Commandment was only about statues and idols. I never imagined it was first spoken by a Jewish mother fleeing her own son’s violence.

Yet in Parashat Toldot, centuries before the thunder at Sinai, Rivkah utters the Second Commandment in Toldot almost word-for-word:

“Your brother Esau is comforting himself (מִתְנַחֵם) with the thought of killing you.” (Genesis 27:42)

Rabbi David Fohrman demonstrates that this single sentence is the exact precursor. It leads to “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Esau’s rage is not just anger. It has become his god.

How Esau Became the First Worshipper of “Another God”

In Hebrew, the verb מִתְנַחֵם (mitnachem) means “to comfort oneself.” After losing the blessing, Esau does not turn to Hashem for comfort. He turns to murder.

Murderous hatred becomes his new deity—the very first “other god” in human history after Cain.

Rivkah’s urgent warning to Jacob is therefore the Second Commandment in Toldot in its embryonic form:

Do not serve the god of revenge. Do not let violence sit on the throne where only Hashem belongs.

This is why the Rebecca Jacob Sinai mirror is so devastating to replacement theology. The Second Commandment did not begin with golden calves or Baal statues. It began when a Jewish mother identified the first false god humanity ever worshipped: the god of blood-revenge.

The Chiastic Proof – Side by Side

Sinai (Exodus 20:3)	Toldot (Genesis 27:41–42)
לֹא יִהְיֶה־לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עַל־פָּנָיָ “You shall have no other gods before Me”	וַיִּתְנַחֵם הוּא לְהָרְגְּךָ “He is comforting himself by killing you” – serving the god of murderous rage

Judaism is not a religion. It’s a family.

That’s what the rabbi from Aish said, and it hit me deep.

I’m half Black. My mother is from Levi. My great-grandfather was a Cohen from Germany, whose family came through Spain, Portugal, New Mexico, and Mexico. We’re Black, we’re European, we’re everything.

Look across the Jewish world — Yemenite, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Ethiopian — we don’t look the same. That’s because we’re not a race. We’re a family.

Deuteronomy 32

7Remember the days of old; reflect upon the years of [other] generations. Ask your father, and he will tell you; your elders, and they will inform you.		זזְכֹר֙ יְמ֣וֹת עוֹלָ֔ם בִּ֖ינוּ שְׁנ֣וֹת דֹּֽר וָדֹ֑ר שְׁאַ֤ל אָבִ֨יךָ֙ וְיַגֵּ֔דְךָ זְקֵנֶ֖יךָ וְיֹֽאמְרוּ־לָֽךְ:
8When the Most High gave nations their lot, when He separated the sons of man, He set up the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.		חבְּהַנְחֵ֤ל עֶלְיוֹן֙ גּוֹיִ֔ם בְּהַפְרִיד֖וֹ בְּנֵ֣י אָדָ֑ם יַצֵּב֙ גְּבֻלֹ֣ת עַמִּ֔ים לְמִסְפַּ֖ר בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
9Because the Lord’s portion is His people. Jacob, the lot of His inheritance.		טכִּ֛י חֵ֥לֶק יְהֹוָ֖ה עַמּ֑וֹ יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב חֶ֥בֶל נַֽחֲלָתֽוֹ:

When we left Egypt, 70 nations joined us. At Mount Sinai, they all became Yisrael. The Torah isn’t a book about perfect people — it’s a book about a broken family trying to come back together.

That’s why the idea of “chosen” matters. It’s not about being better. It’s about being part of this family that carries the original blueprint from Adam, and having the responsibility to fix what’s broken.

I am half Black. My mother is from Levi. My great-grandfather was a Cohen whose line came through Germany, Spain, Portugal, New Mexico, Mexico, and Texas. We are everything — exactly as the Torah describes a family that absorbed 70 nations.

Chosen does not mean “better.” It means carrying greater responsibility: 613 mitzvot for Adam versus the other “Rewritten-Adam”-made religions, each with its own mission. We are called to be a light unto the nations — not an exclusive club, but a model and guide. Everyone has a role. The ancestors chose God as much as He chose us. That choice echoes through generations, empowering rather than burdening.

Anti-Semitism and How We Confront It

The rabbis traced anti-Semitism back to Sinai — a subconscious recognition that Jews carry God’s message. When the world is moral, it embraces that light. When immoral, it pushes back. Anti-Semitism can even act as guardrails, preventing full assimilation and keeping identity alive (as Rabbi Dubov shared from his Soviet family experience).

But the real confrontation is internal. Strengthen Jewish identity, increase unity, and live the values proudly. Respect flows from self-respect. As one rabbi noted, we don’t need love — we need respect. The best response is to become more authentically Jewish and spread light.

The 90-99% Disconnect

Looking into the Mirror

When I first went to Israel, I expected to see a nation living by the Torah. Instead, I saw America looking back at me.

The United States is deeply woven with Jewish history. The Founders studied our Tanakh — especially the Book of Deuteronomy — and built something remarkable. They created a Constitution based on Torah principles that gave us separation of powers, something Israel still doesn’t have.

Because of this Constitution, America became a shield for the world. Without it, COVID would likely have overrun everything, and the Great Reset would have succeeded.

Just like Judaism, America isn’t about race or color. To belong here, you simply become American. The same idea lives in Israel.

These two nations are bound together by the same blueprint — the Torah that was first given to Adam. One carries it in its DNA, the other carries it in its founding documents.

Both are meant to be light, but both are struggling to remember who they truly are.

Going Home For The First Time

When I first visited Israel in late 2002 (after my mother revealed our Jewish heritage on 9/11/2001), I expected a nation immersed in Torah. Instead, I saw a mirror of America. The panel agreed: roughly 90% of Jews today lack a deep connection to Torah. From my work as a prison chaplain — surveying pastors, chaplains, and volunteers — I’d put the Christian Bible disconnect at 99%.

Whether secular, Sephardic, religious, or anywhere in between — if you carry the DNA and heritage, you are family. The Torah is a book about a broken family learning to reunite. Our job is to revive the living Torah for this generation.

One of the great issues I deal with is that most Christain and Jews do not know their Bibles. Our father Abraham went throughout the land making souls. How does one make soul? Why did Hashem choose Abraham? Why is Abraham called our father?

Hearken to Me, you pursuers of righteousness, you seekers of the Lord; look at the rock whence you were hewn and at the hole of the pit whence you were dug.		אשִׁמְע֥וּ אֵלַ֛י רֹ֥דְפֵי צֶ֖דֶק מְבַקְשֵׁ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה הַבִּ֙יטוּ֙ אֶל־צ֣וּר חֻצַּבְתֶּ֔ם וְאֶל־מַקֶּ֥בֶת בּ֖וֹר נֻקַּרְתֶּֽם:
2Look at Abraham your father and at Sarah who bore you, for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many.		בהַבִּ֙יטוּ֙ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֣ם אֲבִיכֶ֔ם וְאֶל־שָׂרָ֖ה תְּחֽוֹלֶלְכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־אֶחָ֣ד קְרָאתִ֔יו וַֽאֲבָֽרְכֵ֖הוּ וְאַרְבֵּֽהוּ:
3For the Lord shall console Zion, He shall console all its ruins, and He shall make its desert like a paradise and its wasteland like the garden of the Lord; joy and happiness shall be found therein, thanksgiving and a voice of song.		גכִּֽי־נִחַ֨ם יְהֹוָ֜ה צִיּ֗וֹן נִחַם֙ כָּל־חָרְבֹתֶ֔יהָ וַיָּ֚שֶׂם מִדְבָּרָהּ֙ כְּעֵ֔דֶן וְעַרְבָתָ֖הּ כְּגַן־יְהֹוָ֑ה שָׂשׂ֚וֹן וְשִׂמְחָה֙ יִמָּ֣צֵא בָ֔הּ תּוֹדָ֖ה וְק֥וֹל זִמְרָֽה:

There are only two sets of people in the DNA family of Noach that have Abraham DNA. Jews and Arabs. The Bible is a blueprint for creation and the history of our family. The family of Adam and Eve.

How Do We Bring People Closer?

Young people (and most people) aren’t reached by traditional methods alone. They want the Torah as a blueprint: how it aligns with science, archaeology, DNA evidence (like Nathaniel Jeanson’s work tracing lineages), quantum ideas, and personal empowerment. They want to know how connection to Hashem makes them more effective creators in the world.

Speak their language — TED Talks, YouTube, modern examples, experiential Shabbat tables, authentic role models. Show that Torah observance isn’t a restriction; it’s liberation and enablement. As the rabbis shared, deep study reveals it empowers you to reach your highest potential.

Dual Loyalty and the Deeper Mirror

The panel wrestled honestly with questions of loyalty. Our ultimate loyalty is to God and moral integrity. For citizens, that includes honoring the laws of the land (dina d’malchuta). One powerful framing is that supporting Israel often serves America best because “those who bless Israel will be blessed.”

America’s Constitution drew deeply from Torah principles — especially Deuteronomy — creating separation of powers and a framework that has protected liberty. These two nations are bound by the same blueprint. Both are meant to shine as lights, yet both show the same symptoms of forgetting their source.

The Call to Remember

Adam’s blueprint lives in us. The Tree of Life is our inheritance. Things are not the way they should be — but they can be. Each generation gets its reset in the Cosmic Shemitah. This one is ours.

Whether Jewish by heritage or drawn to the light, the invitation is the same: reconnect to the Source. Study the blueprint. Become the person Hashem designed. Fix the family. Let the Torah live through you — with science, purpose, and power.

The young generation is ready. Let’s speak in a way they can hear.

Hazan Gavriel ben David