Tag Archives: Replacement Theology



by Rabbi Dr. Yosef ben Haggai and Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu ben Abraham

While the messianic figure of the Rabbis has covered a plethora of ideals and personas, the two outstanding figures representing messiah are David and Yosef. While there are scholars, who postpone the two concepts until after the Bar Kokhba revolt, the “Gabriel Revelation”39 reveals the truth that the idea predates the first century C.E. by as much as 200 years. As Messiah ben Yosef, Yeshua was to suffer rather than reign, as pictured in the Davidic prototype. However, the Davidic son established the primary prototype for the messianic persona.

1Ki 1:39-40 Then Zadok the priest took a horn of oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon. And they blew the horn, and all the people said, “Long live King Solomon!” 40 And all the people went up after him; and the people played the flutes and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth seemed to split with their sound.

1Ki 2:1-4 Now the days of David drew near that he should die, and he charged Solomon his son, saying: “I go the way of all the earth; be strong, therefore, and prove yourself a man. “And keep the charge of the LORD your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn; “that the LORD may fulfill His word which He spoke concerning me, saying, `If your sons take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul,’ He said, `you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’

G-d’s promise to King David is most profound, “If your sons take heed to their way, to walk before Me (G-d) in truth with all their heart and with all their soul,” He said, “you will not lack a man on the throne of Israel.” The Messiah must be faithful to the Torah, its Chuqot (statutes), mitzvot, (commandments) eduyot (testimonies), mishpatim (judgments) and Derek HaShem (ethics).

All the accounts we have of Yeshua’s life demonstrate him as a man of great piety.

We are so accustomed…to make Jesus the object of religion that we become apt to forget that in our earliest records he is not portrayed as the object of religion, but as a religious man. Thomas Walter Manson, Teachings of Jesus (1935), 10140

As Geza Vermes points out, Yeshua is pictured from the accounts of his life and contents of his “Mesorah” as wrapped within the confines of a pious Pharisaic Jew of the late second Temple period. Judaism of the late second Temple period saw the Torah as the absolute maxim for life. Furthermore, it was the application of Torah and the Oral Torah, which governed the religious life of the pious Jew. Temple worship played a vital part in the role of the general populace of this era. However, it appears not to have been the primary concern for those Jews who lived in the distant locations of Eretz Yisrael. Geza Vermes seems to believe that the mandate found in our present Torah Seder41 was more idealistic than practical.42 Therefore, we would surmise that the Jewish people who actually “appeared before the LORD” three times a year were the more pious Jewish people. The picture portrayed of Yeshua in the Nazarean Codicil matches the image of Yosef. When the Sages of blessed memory, want to portray a man of piety, they use Yosef as their prototype. Consequently, Yeshua the son of Yosef is a fitting messianic title.

While the Biblical prophecies, which tell us that Messiah would intervene in the affairs of humanity, are somewhat cryptic, the Oral Torah contains a plethora of materials, which explain his role in redemption. Rabbi Akiva, with the failure of Bar Kokhba looked to the future for redemption. His parallel taken from the words of Rabbi Tarfon, taught that the first redemption from Egypt would lay the foundation and precedent for the final redemption in the distant future.43 We must assert that the Jewish view of redemption does not match the typical western view of “salvation.” Judaism saw the redemption as the end of exile. The analogy presented above clearly demonstrates that desire for Jewish autonomy. However, redemption is not merely autonomy. The Rabbis looked to the end of the age when the Jewish people would be the kings and priests of the earth. Therefore, the final phase of redemption would include the subjugation of the Gentiles by the Messianic redeemer. The violent abuse of Rome during the first century was intolerable. Hence, the Jewish people of that era longed for the appearing of this messianic figure.


Not only did Pilate refuse to acknowledge Yeshua as the Messiah, his cohort of nearly 600 men incessantly mocked Yeshua by placing a robe of purple and crown made of thorns on him. Then to show their disdain for the Messianic concept they spat and struck him repeatedly with a reed as it is written “6 I gave my back to the smitters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. (Isa 50:6)”. As we will see the refusal of Rome to accept and acknowledge Yeshua as the Messiah is not relegated to a few Roman soldiers from Pilate’s militia.



The Tz’dukim of the late second Temple period established the mindset for the coming Roman “priesthood.” The defunct priesthood of the late second Temple period espoused Rome. This defunct priesthood surrendered a Jewish Messiah to the Roman hoard in order to become a new priesthood. The Tz’dukim who disappeared with the destruction of the second Temple reappears as the priesthood of “Christianity.” The “out of work” priests looked for new occupational territory and employment, which they find in Rome. Regardless, we see that the espousal of Rome as inevitable when one abandons true normative Judaism. We must concur with the above cited thesis and further that we see the Tz’dukim’s espousal of the Roman government as an analogy of what was to come. The Roman cohort of Pilate derided Yeshua through vicious behavior and conduct against a pious Jew as if he were a slave or a criminal. This behavior is nothing new for Rome. Nor should we be surprised at their conduct. Historically Rome has been the instigator for many of the atrocities leveled against the Jewish people. However, we must note that Rome’s treatment of Yeshua has yet to change. Consequently, we must restate that Rome has yet to accept Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah. By this statement, we mean that Rome and all of it siblings have NEVER accepted Yeshua as Jewish Messiah, albeit they have deified “Jesus” as their Christ. Accordingly, we have pseudo- priesthood with a pseudo-messiah. Messiah divorced from normative Judaism is not a Jewish Messiah but a Roman Christ.

One of the most heinous crimes perpetrated against Yeshua and the Jewish people is the crime of “replacement theology.” However, we must assert that this idea was not the brainchild of a later Christian strategist. The Tz’dukim and Samaritans developed this notion long before Christianity. Nonetheless, the idea of our present pericope, as found in the Nazarean Codicil is of Roman origin. Herod had the legitimate priests of Levitical lineage assassinated only to “replace” them with a pseudo-priesthood that would follow Roman rules and serve the interests of Roman authorities. Consequently, Judaism’s battle with Rome and replacement theology has existed for millennia. Furthermore, its Roman origins remain intact to this very day.


The world has survived these thousands of years in the midst of a struggle, brother against brother. Ya’aqob and Esau were not the first brothers with these troubles. The very first brothers of Biblical mention demonstrate the difficulties of rivalries between brothers. However, it is Ya’aqob and Esau, which the Sages use to depict the present Diaspora.

Mal 1:2-3 “I have loved you,” says the LORD. “Yet you say, `In what way have You loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” Says the LORD. “Yet Jacob I have loved; But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.

Hakham Shaul cites this prophetic passage in his letter to the Roman talmidim of Yeshua.45 The Prophet speaks of the demise of Rome (Edom – Esau – Christianity).46 The “mountain laid waste” can only be understood as an analogy for the “government” of Rome. We will not delve into the imagery except to say that we must expect the Roman system and rule to crumble in the final redemption just as the Egyptian régime toppled under the leadership of Moshe Rabbenu. Our mention of the Roman government must be understood as the system, which has incessantly tried to strip Yeshua of his Jewish persona and Rabbinic profession. Like the Romans of Pilate’s cohort, they dress Yeshua in Roman garb mockingly honoring him as “King of the Jews.” However, before they placed him on the tree they redressed him in his Jewish apparel to show disdain and contempt for a Jewish Rabbi and Messiah. The death of a Jewish Prophet and Rabbi allowed them to resurrect a Roman god in his place. Their mental perspective of Messiah has yet to change. And, they have yet to accept a Jewish Messiah.

We have noted that Hakham Shaul wrote a letter to the community of believers in Rome. In short, Hakham Shaul sums up his requirements in the initial paragraph of his letter.

Rom 1:5 Through him (Yeshua) we have received chesed and a commission to bring into obedience47 among all gentiles, living in faithfulness to the Torah under his authority…48

Please note that the Gentiles are called to obedience and faithfulness to the Torah under the authority and Mesorah of Yeshua the Jewish Messiah. The letter of Hakham Shaul lays down the prototypical acceptance for the Messianic community. Those who follow Yeshua Must observe the Torah!49 I HAVE ACCEPTED YESHUA AS THE MESSIAH

Common nomenclature among Christians, as noted, is the acceptance of Yeshua as Messiah. The difficulty being, Christianity (Rome) has yet to accept a Jewish Messiah! The “Jesus we believed in in our youth was a blond- haired hippie type rebel, who was in rebellion against the “establishment,” which at the time we thought was the Jewish religion. Much to our surprise Yeshua turned out to be a pro – Torah Rabbi of the first century promoting rabbinic halakhah. Only after embracing the Jewish interpretation of Messiah could one say that he accepted Yeshua as the Messiah! There is no such thing as a Gentile Messiah!

Acts 10:1-2 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people (of Yisrael), and prayed to God appropriately.

Act 10:47-48 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be immersed who received the Divine Presence just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be immersed…

Cornelius demonstrates the profile for a genuine Gentile follower of Yeshua. While Cornelius appears here in our initially cited text as a “pious” man (Gentile) who “fears G-d” he converts to Judaism in verse 47. It is a fallacy to believe or purport that Cornelius became a “Christian.” In other words, the true path of Any follower of Yeshua is sooner or later to convert to Judaism. However, we have juxtaposed Cornelius against the Roman cohort of our present pericope to demonstrate the appropriate response to Yeshua by a Gentile. The passage cited above from Hakham Shaul’s letter to the Romans clearly instructs Gentiles to “live in faithfulness to the Torah under his (Messiah’s) authority.”


If the “First Redemption” can be pictured in the initial Pesach and “Yetsi’at Mitzrayim” (Exodus from Egypt) we must realize that there will be another redemption, a final redemption, which overturns all Roman rule in the earth. The demise of the Roman system will find masses themselves embracing a true Jewish Messiah rather than the false Christ they have worshiped for millennia.


Subjugation by Rome not only brought Yisrael to its departure, sending them into Diaspora, it infiltrated and plagiarized its religious aspects instituting a pseudo-Judaism, which mimicked nearly every aspect of this ancient religion. This plagiarism has wearied the soul of the Jewish people. G-d through His agent, Messiah will exact the appropriate vengeance upon Rome, Edom and those who have espoused their doctrines.

Targum Pseudo Yonatan Yesha’yahu 62:1 He is about to bring a stroke upon Edom, a strong avenger upon Bozrah, to take the just retribution of His people, just as He swore to them by His Memra. He said, Behold I am revealed – just as I spoke – in virtue, there is great force before Me to save.

We have cited this passage in the recent past. However, it suffices to cite it again for the present materials.

The prophet prophesies concerning what the Holy One, blessed be He, said that He is destined to wreak vengeance upon Edom, and He, personally, will slay their heavenly prince, like the matter that is said (supra 34:5), “For My sword has become sated in the heaven.” And afterward, (ibid.) “it shall descend upon Edom,” and it is recognizable by the wrath of His face that He has slain [them with] a great massacre, and the prophet is speaking in the expression of the wars of human beings, dressed in clothes, and when they slay a slaying, the blood spatters on their garments, for so is the custom of Scripture; it speaks of the Shekhinah anthropomorphically, to convey to the ear what it can hear. Comp. (Ezek. 43:2) “His voice is like the voice of many waters.” The prophet compares His mighty voice to the voice of many waters to convey to the ear according to what it is possible to hear, for one cannot understand and hearken to the magnitude of the mighty of our God to let us hear it as it is.

“The heavenly prince of Edom is destined to commit two errors. He thinks that Bozrah is identical with Bezer in the desert, which was a refuge city. He will also err insofar as it affords refuge only for inadvertent murder, but he killed Israel intentionally.”50

Rashi’s comments make clear that there will be a war waged against Edom (Rome – Christianity who has failed to embrace Yeshua as a Jewish Messiah). Messiah our Go’el, “Kinsman redeemer” will exact punishment on those who have been involved in intentional crimes against the Jewish people.


Jer 16:19-21 O LORD, my strength and my fortress, My refuge in the day of affliction, The Gentiles shall come to You From the ends of the earth and say, “Surely our fathers have inherited lies, Worthlessness and unprofitable things.” 20 Will a man make gods for himself, Which are not gods? 21 “Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know My hand and My might; And they shall know that My name is the LORD.”

Note that the Prophet reiterates the justice, which G-d will pour out on those who refuse to accept the true path to G-d in the words “Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know My hand and My might.”

Messiah’s death in the present pericope of Mordechai is not so strange when we stop to count the millions of Jews destroyed by senseless malice and hatred. Why did the Romans crucify Yeshua? Rome crucified a Jewish Rabbi in order to replace him with a gentile god. No self-respecting Jew could accept such a messiah. The demise of a Roman god is at hand. And, the footsteps of a Jewish Messiah are echoing in the near distance.



35 Believing that you are mentally aloof
36 Those who have true humility of the soul
37 Verbal connection to D’barim 17:5
38 Verbal connection to D’barim 17:18
39 BAR 34:05, Sep/Oct 2008 “Messiah the Son of Joseph”

40 Vermes, G. (1993). The Religion of Jesus the Jew. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. p. 184 41 D’barim 16:16
42 Ibid
43 Cf. m. Pesachim 10:6

44 Here I use “Rome” as the people, and the religion developed from Rome. I further the understanding that “Rome” is Edom. It must also be stated that Rome is Catholicism and all of it siblings, i.e. Protestant Christianity, which fails to accept a JEWISH messiah and the Torah, written and Oral.

45 Cf. Rom 9:13
46 For an in-depth presentation of the relationship of Easu with Edom and Rome, see… Harry Sysling, Teḥiyyat ha-metim: the resurrection of the dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and parallel traditions in classical rabbinic literature. Mohr Siebeck, 1996
47 Note: It is G-d’s grace, if I may use the term, to bring Gentiles into faithful obedience of the Torah and Oral Torah through the agent of Yeshua our Messiah.
48 My rendition

49 Mt assertion is that they must accept the Torah Written, Oral along with the Mesorah of Messiah. The Mesorah of Messiah will take us to deeper levels of commitment in some areas which may not be comfortable for some of his followers.



Just as Jannes (Jannis) and Jambres opposed Moses


Mishnah א:א
Because although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give Him thanks, but they became vain52 (futile) in their reasoning,53 and their unteachable54 minds (hearts55) were darkened. Professing wisdom,56 they acted foolishly,57 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the images (idols) of corrupted human58 beings,59 birds, quadrupeds and reptiles.



b. Shabb. 89a Why was Mount Sinai was also called Mount Horeb? Because desolation [hurbah] to idolaters descended thereon.

Our job as Nazareans is to be able to explicate the Torah in the same manner that Hakham Tsefet and Hakham Shaul did. In other words, we must have an understanding of the Master is a way that allows us to see the intricate workings of his mind in his talmidim and their writings. As such, this would be a great place for a test. The following question would be the summary of the whole test.

How does the present text of Hakham Tsefet’s Peshat elucidate and connect with the Torah Seder?

Hint #1: P’qod Kol Bekhor Zakhar!

Hint #2: Read last week’s Peshat and Tosefta!


Hakham Shaul’s pericope (Rm. 1:21-23) is perfect parlance of the Torah Seder “P’QOD KOL BEKHOR ZAKHAR.” It is perfectly evident that the pericope of Romans 1:21-23 is a direct expression of “P’QOD KOL BEKHOR ZAKHAR.” and related issues.



In dealing directly with the text, we will note the following. The section of Romans 1:18-32 deals with the Jewish perspective of the Gentile world. While some scholars contest this notion, Professor Paula Fredrikson’s article on Judaism and Circumcision notes the Jewish view of the “average Gentile” in the first century. Even though we have cited this reference in the past, we find these comments apropos.

What, on the average, did the average Jew think of the average Gentile? I think that we can rely here on Paul who, even when addressing Gentiles and in some sense acting as their advocate, refers to them, quite unselfconsciously, as ‘sinners’ (Gal.2:15). Their characteristic social and sexual sins—slander, insolence, deceit, malicious gossip, envy, heartlessness, disrespect of parents, homosexual and heterosexual fornication— are the varied expression of a more fundamental spiritual error: they worship idols. Could there be such a thing, then, as a morally good Gentile?60

Fredrikson also notes that there are also arguments for the moral superiority of Gentiles who respect Jews and Judaism within the works of Josephus.61 Furthermore, Hellenistic Jews such as Philo found the “Stranger” who converted to be not only superior to his “pagan” counterparts but being embraced by the loving-kindness of G-d. Jewish acceptance of the “convert” is therefore considered meritorious.62 Consequently, the Gentiles who were “sympathetic” towards the Jewish people were considered to be of a greater moral affluence and worthy of merit. Hakham Shaul may have seen Gentiles that he was addressing in this way. However, what is very evident here is that the view of the Gentiles during the first century tended to be one of disdain and contempt rather than acceptance. The Gentile populace of “Rome” most likely would have found Judaism appealing based on it legal system. This view shows that the Romans considered themselves the vogue society. Acceptance of laws that governed civil and religious life therefore would have been appealing. The civility of Jewish lifestyle would have been a welcomed change from the drunken revelries of Roman debauchery.

Roman acceptance of certain aspects of Hellenistic influence had been a societal elevation. “Rules” and “Laws” for the Hellenist meant morality and civility. Monuments and shrines found listing numerous moral maxims in the middle of Grecian cities attest to this very truth.63 Interestingly, these “moral maxims,” were religious and philosophical in nature. Their sources varied but of greatest interest is the fact that portions came from Persian magi and Jewish Priests.64 The Hellenistic propensity towards high ethic may account for the Legalistic approach of Stephen in 2Luqas (Acts) 6-7and following.

Roman monarchies often pictured and proclaimed themselves gods. This eventually lead to a denigration of the so- called hierarchy among Roman rulers. Even the Roman hierarchy of military was not exempt from having wives, family and children used as depraved sport by their leaders. The grip of paganism was destroyed by true moral civility as modeled by their Jewish subordinates. Code of conduct within family and society were far more appealing than the alternatives. This is not to say that Rome had no strengths worthy of emulation. However, the destruction of Rome was the result of antinomianism.65 The lack of certain legal restraint allowed immoral conduct to bring a deterioration and annihilation from within itself.



Ephesians 4:17-19 Now I say this, and testify in the Master, that from now on you cannot walk66 as (some) other Gentiles do (walk), devoid of truth (Torah) in their mind, having a mental disposition full of darkness, alienated (cutoff) from the life  God, their ignorance  is due to an unyielding obstinacy of the mind.  For they, being desensitized, having given themselves up to apostasy, to every kind of impurity.

The consequence of idolatry and rejection of Torah principles results in darkened thinking and thoughts. People prefer a “religion” of their own making rather than the Divine revelation. Thus religion is born, springing from a rejected knowledge of G-d.74 Διαλογισμός – dialogismos in the Nazarean Codicil is only used in the negative sense for evil thoughts or anxious reflection.75 In a sense, the mind of vanity and futility is the judgment G-d has placed on the insolent. This punishment is “middah kneged middah.” The lack of gratitude is punishable through a darkening, retarding of the mind. In rejecting the “Da’at” of G-d the mental faculties are effected. Because there is a lack of honoring G-d in idolatrous and human religion, life is not experienced as a gift from G-d. Therefore, it loses touch with Divine reality and condemns itself to vanity and futility. Cf. Ecc. 1:2 The result or vanity of idolatry is always a “darkening” of the mental facilities. “The relation between sin and mental blindness is that of action and re-action. Each sinful/idolatrous action is cause and effect of mental darkening. Here, the darkening of the intellect is represented as the effect or foolish and wicked speculation; the liar comes to believe his own lie.”76 Knowing G-d demands the appropriate response due to His δοξάζω (glory). In the Jewish mind, “Knowing G-d” demands a specific response. Knowing G-d is tantamount to experiencing G-d. They have in fact experienced Him—His wisdom, power, generosity—in every moment of their existence, though they have not recognized Him. It has been by Him that their lives have been sustained, enriched, bounded. In this limited sense, they have known Him all their lives.77 Because they did not thank G-d as an appropriate response. Men experience the pleasures of “life” and do not give due benevolence to G-d for any of their likings or gifts. The appropriate response is trust and obedience. Men should have recognized their indebtedness to G-d for His loving-generosity.



b. Shabb. 89a Why was Mount Sinai was also called Mount Horeb? Because desolation [hurbah] to idolaters descended thereon.

The current pericope of Hakham Shaul’ pericope is perfect parlance of the present Torah Seder. The current pericope of Romans summed in “v23” notes a circumstance that is a play on Psalms 106:20 (LXX 105), which is a reference to the sin of the Golden calf. It may be hard to determine how this fits into the “Jewish perspective” of the Gentile as a “pagan idolater until we know the details. Furthermore, we can see that Hakham Shaul knows the true nature of the sin of the Golden Calf and its relationship “P’qod Kol Bekhor Zakhar,” numbering of all the first-born males.

God now commands Moses to appoint the Levites to serve and minister to Aaron (Num. 3:5–10), as a substitute for the consecrated firstborn in Israel (Num. 3:11–13, 44). This appointment recognizes the Levites’ response to Moses’ rallying call and their consequent execution of Israelites for the sin of the golden calf (Exod. 32:26–29; Deut. 10:8–9). They accordingly are given charge of carrying the Ark of the Covenant that leads the Israelites in the desert and in battle (Num. 10:33–36; Josh. 6) and are assigned as assistants to Aaron

and his sons (Num. 3:9), to attend on and minister to God (1 Chr. 23:28, 32).78

Professing wisdom,79 they acted foolishly,80 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the images (idols) of corrupted human beings,81 birds, quadrupeds and reptiles.

2Ti 3:8 Just as aJannes (Jannis)82 and Jambres opposed Moses,83 so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected concerning faithful obedience to G-d and His Torah

Some scholars point out that Hakham Shaul’s reference to Jannes and Jambres shows his connection with and use of Jewish Liturgy84, i.e. Triennial Torah Reading Cycle. The Timothy passage is especially germane to our present pericope. This is because “Jannes and Jamberes” had full “knowledge” of who G-d was. Hakham Shaul was aware that Jannes (Janis-Jannis) and Jambres opposed Moshe on more than one occasion.

The first occasion:

Targum Pseudo Yonatan Shemot (Ex) 1:15 And Pharoh told that he, being asleep, had seen in his dream, and, behold, all the land of Mizraim was placed in one scale of a balance, and a lamb, the young of a sheep, was ill the other scale; and the scale with the lamb in it overweighed. Forthwith he sent and called all the magicians of Mizraim, and imparted to them his dream. Immediately Jannis and Jambres, the chief of the magicians, opened their mouth and answered Pharoh? A certain child85 is about to be born in the congregation of Israel, by whose hand will be destruction to all the land of Mizraim. Therefore did Pharoh, king of Mizraim, give counsel to the Jehudith midwives, the name of one of whom was Shifra, who is Jokeved, and the name of the other Puvah, who is Miriam her daughter.

Second occasion:
Targum Pseudo Yonatan Shemot (Ex) 7:11 But Pharoh called the hachems and magicians; and they also,

Janis and Jamberes, magicians of Mizraim, did the same by their burnings of divination.
Also relevant to our discussion is the fact that many Gentiles parted from Egypt (Mitzrayim) with the B’ne Yisrael.

Targum Pseudo Yonatan Shemot (Ex) 12:38 and a multitude of strangers, two hundred and forty myriads (thousands), went up with them, and sheep, and oxen, and cattle, very many.

Among those “strangers” were two infamous magicians, named Jannes and Jambres.

JANNES AND JAMBRES, two legendary Egyptian sorcerers whose names appear in various sources as the adversaries of Moses. Jewish tradition seems to identify them with the sorcerers mentioned in Exodus 7:11ff. (cf. Targ. Jon., ibid.). They are also mentioned as the sons of Balaam (Targ. Jon., Num. 22:22; Yal., Ex. 168, 176)

(Tan ., Ki Tissa, 19).86

images (2) Egyptians Magicians


The initiative in demanding the idol (of the Golden Calf) is attributed by some rabbis to the mixed multitude who joined the Israelites at the time of the Exodus (Ex. 12:38). Forty thousand of them, accompanied by two Egyptian magicians, Jannes and Mambres, came to Aaron and claimed that it already was the sixth hour of the 40th day since Moses had left, the hour which he previously had designated for his return. They claimed that since he had not yet appeared he would never come. Satan added to the state of helplessness of the people by showing them a vision of Moses’ bier, which convinced them that he had died. Only then did they demand that Aaron produce a god for them (Shab. 89a; Tanh. B., Ex.112–3).87

The truth of Romans 1:18 is now revealed. For the revelation of God’s wrath88 coming from the heavens is against all the wicked89 and unjust men (like Jannes and Jambres) who intentionally suppress90 the truth. This is because even intimate knowledge of God91 is evident to them, because God revealed Himself92 among them.

b. Shabb. 89a One of the Rabbis asked R. Kahana: have you heard what the mountain of Sinai [connotes]… While what was its [real] name? its name was Horeb. Now they disagree with R. Abbahu, For R. Abbahu said: its name was Mount Sinai, and why was it called Mount Horeb? Because desolation [hurbah] to idolaters descended thereon.

Hakham Shaul knows the Aggadah, and the Targum having followed the Jewish liturgical readings of the Torah. Consequently, the Torah, Targum and related materials fashioned the opinion of Hakham Shaul concerning the pagan Gentiles. The “Jewish perspective” of the Gentile as a “pagan idolater was therefore; more than likely the Rabbinic view. Har Sinai is also Horeb because of the desolation of idolaters. Allegorically we take this to mean that the Torah is a means for destroying idolatry and pagan idolaters. We can look at their destruction as if they were destroyed in some horrific punishable way or we can see their destruction in their acceptance of Torah. It seems evident that Hakham Shaul was looking for the latter.

maxresdefault Janis and Jambree

In the end Messianic Judaism and Christianity have suppressed the truth, disregarding the Jewish people.  They have rebelled against the creator’s will.  They have disregarded the true lawgiver of Hashem and place before them their own magicians and storytellers.

In our next article we will show how this rebellion has been for thousands of years and how it is recorded in our Jewish Bible.


60 Professor Paula Fredrikson, Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 42 (1991) p534

61 Ibid
62 Philo. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. New updated ed. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Pub, 1993. p. 650

Num 3:40 – 4:16

Ps 92:9-16

Is 66:7-12, 20-23

Mordecai 10:10-12

Romans 1:21-23

63Walbank, F. W. The Hellenistic World. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, .1993p. 60ff
65Our reference here is used to denote that opposition to the Torah’s laws of civil morality brought about its own destruction. However, we must note that the “antinomianism” of Rome is not the same as it is in the contemporary world. The Romans of the first century were “lawless” on a level that may not have been specific opposition to the Torah. Only after introduction to the Torah and then its refusal could the Romans be considered “antinomian.” The true idea of antinomianism in its contemporary meaning did not exist until Martin Luther.
66περιπατέω –peripateo is used here twice to call the Gentile to Torah observance, meaning Hakham Shaul demands the acceptance of the Halakhah 613(mitzvot) as taught and expounded upon by the Hakhamim.
67ματαιότης –mataiotes mental futility or vanity. This means that the Gentile who rejects the Torah, 613Mitzvot and the teachings of the Hakhamim are aimless conducting lifestyles of futility. This futility has captured their minds holding them ransom.
68Hakham Shaul now apprises us of the opposing mental disposition. Not only is it a mental disposition, it is the direct opposition to the Torah, the 613Mitzvot and the Hakhamim.
69ἀπαλλοτριόω –apallotriou has the sense of being “hostile.”
70Morally bereft of all sensible mores. The depth of this statement is only understood from a Hebraic mindset. To be ַרת ָּכ –karat, “cut off” means completely estranged from G-d’s presence and protection. Those who were “cut off” while traveling through the wilderness were subjected to every evil influence, without G-d’s protection or chesed/grace. Therefore, this is a crime of excommunication by Divine Decree. Here we can see the gravity of moral purposelessness. There are those people who believe that the idle mind of secular entertainment is harmless. However, this idle purposelessness is “opposition” to the Torah, which presents the “goal of Messiah” before us a s standard of life. Life in Messiah has the purpose of recapturing the mission of Adam HaRishon. Adam HaRishon shows the ability to capture the essence of each creature on the earth. Nevertheless, the goal was to apprehend the essence of G-d Himself. Herein, Hakham Shaul in this letter to the Ephesian Congregation sets this goal before them in the pattern of the ten men 3(Dinim –Judges and 7Paqidim) of the congregation. Why did Adam HaRishon and his spouse Chava cover themselves with a fig leaf? Was this an attempt to “hide” from the Omni Presence of G-d? Their new “awareness” was the sentience of the state of being ַרת ָּכ –karat, “cut off.” Therefore, they saw that they were without G-d’s protection in the Garden. Covering themselves with a fig leaf has many So’od connotations. The most simplistic explanation is that they wanted to camouflage themselves primarily from G-d but the other animals of the earth that would now pursue them as a food source. The human mind/soul is preprogramed with the capacity to perceive G-d. When we deviate from the Torah and the teachings of the Hakhamim, this is impossible.
71This is an unyielding mind devoted to opposing G-d and G-dly truth/practice. Its dealings are strict, harsh cruel and merciless. Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., &Bauer, W. .)2000(A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.
72This is the result of being “cut off” from G-d. The language uses terms of sexual impropriety as an allegorical way of telling us that the

 69 alienated having a mental disposition full of darkness (cut off) from the life of God their ignorance is due to an unyielding obstinacy of mind.

For they, being desensitized, have given themselves up to apostasy,72 to every kind of impurity.73person or persons are bereft of G-d or any ethical mores. Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd mans. 1:490 73 In much of the Nazarean Codicil, demonic possession is associated with ritual impurity. While, Hakham Tsefet (Peter the wise) learned at Caesarea not to call Gentiles unclean, those who vehemently oppose the Torah are in some way subjected to unclean Shedim. This is not to say that all Gentiles are “unclean,” G-d forbid. Rather it is noteworthy to mention that direct opposition against the Torah, as a way of life is the mission of two-thirds of the shedim / fallen angels. Therefore, the darkened mind refers to those Gentiles who are either simply ignorant of the Torah as a way of life, and, those who are vehemently opposed to it because of their “unyielding obstinacy of mind.” Hakham Shaul’s view of the Gentile in Ephesians is the same as his view in his Letter to the Romans 1:18-32. Here Hakham Shaul takes the position that the lack of ability to comprehend G-d is a willful opposition against the Torah/G-d.

74 Leenhardt, Franz J. The Epistle to the Romans: A Brilliant Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Church at Rome. The World Publishing Company, 1961. pp. 22-24
75 Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964. G. Schrenk TDNT 2:96

76 Shedd, William G. T. Commentary on Romans. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999. p.23
77 Cranfield, C. E. B. (2004). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. London; New York: T&T Clark International. p. 117

78Neusner, J., Neusner, J., Avery-Peck, A. J., Green, W. S., & Museum of Jewish Heritage (New York, N. Y. (2000). The encyclopedia of Judaism. “Published in collaboration with the Museum of Jewish Heritage, New York.” (2:596). Brill
79 Professing to have Hokhmah
80 To be recalcitrant

81 φθαρτός – phthartos is used of that which is corruptible and perishing.
82 Cf. Targum Pseudo Yonatan Shemot (Ex) 1:15: 32:4
83 Cf. Ex 7:11; 32.4
84 McNamara, M. 1966. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch. AnBib 27a. Rome. 83-85
85 Explicit mention has already been made of these two in Pseudo-Jonathan at Exodus 1:15, in an inserted haggadah on Pharaohs dream on the birth of a lamb (Aramaic talya; “lamb, kid” or “young boy”), interpreted by Jannes and Jambres chief magicians of Egypt as referring to the birth of a son among the Israelites, one destined to destroy Egypt. McNamara, Martin. Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2010. p. 236

86 Roth, Cecil. Encyclopedia Judaica [or Encyclopedia Judaica] (16 Volumes). Keter Publishing House, n.d. Vol 11. p. 78

87 Ibid Vol 7. pp. 700-1
88 G-d’s wrath is often pictured and spoken of in terms of “G-d’s rage” or “anger.” There is an amazing difference in the nature of G-d as described in this passage. G-d’s chief desire is to show His goodness to His creatures and for His creatures to feel His love. This is the true reason for the existence of the universe, cosmos. The “revelation” (apocalypse) of G-d’s wrath against one of His creatures shows the magnitude of their crimes. Herein the creature has failed to understand the gift of the Yetser HaRa. The Yetser HaRa is given as a means of achieving the highest goals of our humanity, and not just to rebel against its creator. The topic of “G-d’s Wrath against the wicked” startshere in Romans 1:18 and continues until 3:31.
89 ἀσέβεια – asebeia is generally translated as “ungodly.” However, the root is stronger in intending that those being mentioned are the “wicked” Heb. Rashim (pl.). The rasha (sing.) is one who intentionally does evil against his knowledge of that which is good. This makes the rasha accountable for his actions and therefore liable for punishment.
90 The English word “suppress” is from the Latin “sub” (down) premere (to press) supprimere – suppress. This word cannot convey the depth of meaning expressed by Hakham Shaul. The intentional withholding of truth is a most heinous crime. These men withhold the truth knowing the consequences of their actions and those who are affected by these subversive actions.
91 Intimate knowledge here means that “these men” who suppress the truth (i.e. the Torah – Written and Oral) know G-d as far as He is “knowable.” However, even what they know they have subverted and suppressed.
92 G-d revealed His true nature and plan to them. Yet, they withhold the truth (i.e. the Torah – Written and Oral) from those who are subordinate to them.