Most Jews will tell you a non-Jew is not allowed to keep Shabbat. Most Christians will tell you the Sabbath was nailed to the cross and replaced by Sunday. Most Muslims will tell you the real Shabbat is Friday.
All three are wrong. The proof is hidden in plain sight. It lies in the mirror between the Seven Days of Creation and the Seven Stages of the Flood.
Rabbi David Fohrman explains in his breathtaking Aleph Beta series “Noah & the Flood: The Second Creation.” He argues that the entire Flood narrative is a deliberate replay of Genesis 1. However, this time, the world is re-created for all of people, not just Israel.
Day of Creation
Genesis 1
Flood Parallel
Who Receives the Sign?
Day 1 – Light / Darkness
“Let there be light” – Spirit hovers over the face of the waters
Genesis 8:1 – “A wind from God hovered over the face of the waters” – total darkness, void
All living creatures
Day 2 – Separation of waters
Firmament separates waters from waters
Waters above and below separated again
—
Day 3 – Dry land & vegetation
Dry land appears, seed-bearing plants
Dove returns with olive leaf – first sign of dry land and vegetation
—
Day 4 – Sun, moon, stars for seasons
“For signs and for seasons”
Genesis 8:22 – “Seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter… shall not cease” – the rainbow covenant
All descendants of Noah
Day 5 – Birds & sea creatures
“Let the waters swarm… let birds fly”
First to leave the ark: creeping things, birds, swarming creatures
—
Day 6 – Land animals & man
Beasts, cattle, and man in God’s image – “Be fruitful and multiply”
Animals leave, then Noah’s family – but they separate (violating “be fruitful”)
—
Day 7 – God rests
“God blessed the seventh day and made it holy”
Genesis 9 – Rainbow covenant: “I will establish My covenant with you and all flesh” – an eternal sign
Every human being
The rainbow is the ot — the eternal sign — of the seventh day for all the children of Noah. And the last time I checked, every male on earth descends from Shem, Ham, or Japheth — Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson’s Y-chromosome research in Traced proves it.
Charlie Kirk, in his book Real Citizenship, writes: “God gave the rainbow as a universal covenant. It was not given to one nation, but to every living creature. The Sabbath rest was baked into that covenant before Sinai ever happened.”
Yet today: • Some rabbis declare a gentile may not keep Shabbat (a tragic over-correction against missionary theft). • Christians move the day to Sunday — the only day in Creation week never called “good.” • Muslims change it to Friday, which is Day Six. This day represents the beast and man’s animal nature. It is also the very day the Torah warns against murder (Sixth Commandment).
We sing every Shabbat morning in VeShamru. This passage is found in Exodus 31:16–17: וְשָׁמְרוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּת… כִּי אוֹת הִיא בֵּינִי וּבֵין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעֹלָם. “The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath.” It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever.
But read the Hebrew carefully — the word בֵּינִי (“between Me”) appears twice in the Torah:
Exodus 31 — between God and Israel
Genesis 9 — the rainbow between God and all flesh that is on the earth
Two covenants, one sign.
Rabbi Fohrman’s conclusion is shattering: The Flood was not destruction — it was re-creation. And the seventh day of that re-creation was given as a gift and responsibility to every human being alive.
So who is right about Shabbat? No religion today. The Torah is.
Shabbat was never taken from the nations — it was stolen by bad theology and fear.
The rainbow still hangs in the sky every seventh day, whispering the same promise it whispered to Noah:
Rest. Remember who made you. Because the world depends on it.
The children of Noah must learn to rest together on the day God actually blessed. They include Jews, Christians, Muslim, and everyone else. Until they do, the Flood’s waters of chaos will keep rising.
Related essays on beithashoavah.org • Essay 4 – The Fourth Commandment in Toldot: The First Shabbat in Exile. Why Does God Play Favorites? The Silence Cain Heard Wrong • The Rainbow Covenant Science Cannot Erase (Dr. Jeanson & Genesis 9)
Shabbat Shalom — to all the children of Noah, [Your Name] Kohen, descendant of Aaron Beit HaShoavah – Return, Repent, Rejoice
(Publish this as a separate post — it’s too explosive to bury. Link it right after Essay 4 with: “And if you think Shabbat belongs only to the Jews… read this.”)
Most people think the Sabbath commandment began with thunder and smoke at Sinai.
It didn’t.
It began with a terrified Jewish boy running for his life and his mother whispering the Fourth Commandment in Toldot:
“Stay with Laban a few days until your brother’s fury subsides.” (Genesis 27:44)
Rabbi David Fohrman reveals the exact Hebrew parallel:
Sinai (Exodus 20:8–11)
Toldot (Genesis 27:44)
זָכוֹר אֶת־יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”
שֵׁב יָמִים אֲחָדִים עַד אֲשֶׁר־תָּשׁוּב חֲמַת אָחִיךָ “Stay a few days until your brother’s anger subsides”
The phrase יָמִים אֲחָדִים (“a few days”) is the Torah’s coded language for Shabbat rest in exile.
Why? Because the only other time the Torah uses “a few days” in this exact context is when Pharaoh refuses to let Israel rest, and God answers with the plagues and the very first Shabbat in history (Exodus 5:3 → 7-day cycle). “A few days” = the sacred pause before redemption.
Rivkah is not just giving travel advice. She is commanding Jacob to observe the first Shabbat in exile — to stop running, to rest, to let God fight the battle while he waits.
This is the Fourth Commandment in Toldot: When the world is burning with Esau’s rage, the Jewish response is not more action — it is holy waiting.
Why This Matters for Jewish Chosenness
Every time Christianity or Islam claims the Torah’s commandments while rejecting the Jewish people, they violate the Fourth Commandment in Toldot.
They refuse to “stay a few days” — to pause, to rest, to let the Jewish people carry the burden of exile while the nations rage.
But the Torah says the Sabbath belongs to the family that was told to rest first — in a tent in Beersheba, centuries before Sinai.
As Rabbi Dr. Akiva Tatz teaches: “The Jewish people keep Shabbat, and Shabbat keeps the Jewish people.”
Internal Links – Continue the Series
Essay 1: The Ten Commandments in Toldot – They Began with Rivkah, Not Sinai
Essay 2: The Second Commandment in Toldot – Esau’s Rage and “No Other Gods”
Essay 3: The Third Commandment in Toldot – “Why Should I Lose Both of You in One Day?”
Why Does God Play Favorites? The Silence Cain Heard Wrong
Next in this 10-part series: Essay 5 – The Fifth Commandment in Toldot: Honoring the Mother Who Risked Everything
Shabbat Shalom from Synagogue Beit HaShoavah who learned to rest in exile, [Chazzan Gavriel ben David] Beit HaShoavah – Return, Repent, Rejoice https://beithashoavah.org
Last week’s Torah reading, Parashat Toldot, left one thread dangling: Isaac. Who is Isaac, really? Isaac is more than just the bound boy on Moriah. He is the eternal symbol of resurrection. He is the son Hashem provides from the past to redeem the future.
As Ephraim Palanov teaches in his visionary lectures, Isaac returns Samson. Samson is the Nazirite judge whose life mirrors the Akedah in a stunning chiastic structure. He rises to shatter Philistine strongholds in Gaza. Modern echoes of this story resound today.
Imagine this: I sit with Martin, a Christian friend who’s heard it all before. “You Jews did wrong,” he says, “and God rejected you.” I nod—Hashem wrote it plainly through Moshe Rabbenu. Judges 13:1 makes it clear. “The people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.” The LORD gave them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years. (וַיֹּסִ֨פוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לַעֲשֹׂ֥ות הָרַ֖ע בְּעֵינֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וַיִּתְּנֵ֧ם יְהוָ֛ה בְּיַד־פְּלִשְׁתִּ֖ים אַרְבָּעִ֥ים שָׁנָֽה׃). We know our sins. But then I say, “Martin, I can prove Hashem wrote the Torah in under five minutes. It’s math—divine math that measures the world.”
I point to Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson’s Traced: Human DNA’s Big Surprise, peer-reviewed work from Answers in Genesis. Jeanson maps Y-DNA haplogroups to biblical patriarchs, showing modern men descend from three “fathers”: Shem, Ham, and Japheth—Noah’s sons. But zoom in: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob form a precise lineage in haplogroup T. This lineage is traceable through mutations. These mutations align exactly with Genesis timelines. How did a shepherd 3,300 years ago encode this? The Torah isn’t myth; it’s a genetic blueprint, proving Hashem’s authorship like E=mc² proves physics. Without our family—Abraham’s seed—your history crumbles. Christians and Muslims quote our verses, but reject the album they’re printed in.
The Torah as Family Album:
Don’t Rewrite Our Pictures
Picture this: You invite me to your home, pull out your family album. We flip to a photo—your grandfather at war, strong, unyielding. I grab it and say, “No, he was weak; your line ended there.” You’d snatch it back, heartbroken. That’s what replacement theology does to us. The Tanakh is Klal Israel’s album: snapshots of triumphs, failures, redemptions. Samson isn’t a fairy tale; he’s a page from Isaac’s chapter, chiastically mirrored to prove Hashem’s promise endures.
In Toldot, Isaac is עקידה (akedah)—bound, silent, offered. Genesis 22: “Take your son, your only son Isaac” (קַח־נָא אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ אֵת אִיִּדְךָ). The knife descends; an angel halts it. Isaac lives, but the near-death echoes eternity. Fast-forward to Shoftim (Judges): Samson, the barren-born Nazirite (like Isaac to Sarah), embodies that akedah in reverse chiastic glory. Ephraim Palanov, in his prophetic teachings, sees Samson as Isaac reborn—Hashem pulling him from history’s grave to judge Philistines, those eternal jealous Cains haunting Gaza.
Chiastic Mirrors:
Hebrew Words Binding Isaac and Samson
The Tanakh’s genius? Chiastic structures—ABCDCBA symmetries where the center (D) pivots revelation. Isaac’s akedah and Samson’s saga interlock like gears in Hashem’s clock. Let’s unpack the Hebrew parallels, drawn from the stories’ linguistic DNA.
A: Barren Womb, Divine Promise Isaac: Sarah’s barrenness (עֲקָרָה, akarah—Genesis 11:30). Hashem promises: “Sarah will bear a son” (יֹלֵד תֵּלֵד בֵּן, Genesis 18:10). Samson: Manoah’s wife barren (עֲקָרָה, Judges 13:2). Angel echoes: “You will conceive and bear a son” (הָרָה תַּהַרִי וְיָלַדְתְּ בֵּן, Judges 13:3). Same root: הרה (harah)—conception as miracle. Chiastic pivot: From sterility to seed, Hashem chooses the impossible.
B: Binding Vows and Tests Isaac: Bound on the altar (וַיַּעַקְדוּ אֶת־יִצְחָק, vayya’akdu et-Yitzchak—Genesis 22:9). עקד (aked)—to bind, echoing akarah. Samson: Nazirite vow binds him (נָזִיר אֱלֹהִים, nazir Elohim—Judges 13:5). His life a test: Delilah’s “Tell me” (הַגִּידָה לִּי, haggidah li—Judges 16:6) mirrors Abraham’s silence. Hebrew twist: Samson’s locks (נֵזֶר, nezer—crown of binding) fall, unbound like Isaac’s ram-horn echo.
C: Philistine Jealousy as Cain’s Rage Isaac: Abimelech’s men envy wells (וַיִּקְנְאוּ, vayyikne’u—Genesis 26:14). Philistines fill them with dirt—jealousy like Cain’s (קַיִן, kayin—root of acquisition/envy). Samson: Philistines rage at his riddles, weddings (וַיִּחֲרוּ, vayyicharu—burn with anger, Judges 14:19). Gaza today? Same soil, same seething—Philistines reborn in jealousy, listening to emotions over Hashem. As in Toldot’s Esau (red Esau, אֱדוֹם—root of blood rage), they covet the blessing.
D: The Center—Resurrection and Redemption Here the chiasm peaks: Isaac “dies” on the altar, rises redeemed (ram provided, אַיִּל, ayil—Genesis 22:13). Samson, blinded in Gaza, prays: “Let me die with the Philistines” (תֵּת־נָא מוֹתִי, tet-na moti—Judges 16:30). He pushes pillars (עַמּוּדִים, ammudim), temple crashes—killing more in death than life. Hebrew gem: שִׁמְשׁוֹן (Shimshon—“sun-like”) rises at dawn in Gaza (עַזָּה, Azza—“strong”), illuminating akedah’s light. Ephraim Palanov nails it: Isaac’s near-sacrifice births Samson’s final stand—Hashem resurrects the bound son to unbind Israel.
C’: Reversal—Defeating the Jealous Samson burns Philistine fields (וַיִּדְלַק, vayyidalak—Judges 15:5), avenging envy. Isaac re-digs wells (וַיִּגְלֶה, vayyigleh—Genesis 26:18), claiming inheritance. Cain’s dirt-filling reversed: Life from “death.”
B’: Unbinding and Legacy Samson’s hair regrows (וַיִּצְמַח, vayyitzmach—Judges 16:22); unbound, he redeems. Isaac sires twins (וַיִּוָּלֵד, vayyivaled—Genesis 25:26), unbound from barrenness.
A’: Fertile Legacy, Eternal Seed Samson’s line ends childless, but his death seeds Israel’s freedom. Isaac’s seed: Jacob/Israel, the chosen (יַעֲקֹב אֲשֶׁר בָּחַרְתִּיךָ, Ya’akov asher bacharticha—Isaiah 41:8). Full circle: From one barren womb to a nation.
This isn’t coincidence; it’s Hashem’s math—chiastic proof the stories interweave like DNA strands. Videos like Rabbi Fohrman’s Aleph Beta on Samson unpack the vow’s echoes of Isaac’s silence, while deeper dives reveal Gaza’s gates as modern akedah pillars.
Hashem’s Love:
Stronger Than Philistine Rage
To Christians and Muslims: You misuse Isaiah 53—“Who has believed what he has heard from us?… He will surprise many nations. Kings will be silenced because of him” (Isaiah 52:15)—claiming it’s Jesus or Muhammad, not Israel’s remnant. But verse 13 clarifies this important point. “The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies. Neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth” (Zephaniah 3:13, שְׁאֵרִית יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא־יַעֲשׂוּ עַוְלָה). No deceit—like the Servant with “no deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9). That’s us, Klal Israel, the light without guile.
Jeremiah 31:3 whispers Hashem’s vow: “With an everlasting love I have loved you” (בְּאַהֲבַת עוֹלָם אֲהַבְתִּיךָ). His words grow truer daily—from Sinai’s thunder to Gaza’s gates. We sin, yes—like the forty years under Philistines. But Isaac returns as Samson: bound, broken, then bursting forth. Ephraim Palanov’s vision? Not fantasy, but Tanakh’s promise—Hashem resurrects our heroes to defeat the jealous, just as David felled Goliath in Gath.
Your faiths borrow our album’s pictures, but can’t narrate the strength in our grandfather’s eyes. We can—because we’re still in the story. Hashem’s math proves it: Three fathers, one chosen line, eternal redemption.
Internal Links – Dive Deeper into the Album
Essay 1: The Ten Commandments in Toldot – They Began with Rivkah, Not Sinai
Essay 2: The Second Commandment in Toldot – Esau’s Rage and “No Other Gods”
Essay 3: The Third Commandment in Toldot – “Why Should I Lose Both of You in One Day?”
Why Does God Play Favorites? The Silence Cain Heard Wrong
From Crypto-Jewish Mexico to the Torah of My Fathers
Related on Beit HaShoavah:
The Cohen Gene – Y-DNA Proof of Aaron’s Line
Passover Lamb Was Never Jesus – It Was the Egyptian God
Shabbat Shalom—may Isaac’s strength rise in us all, [Chazzan Gavriel benDavid ] Kohen Descendant, Diaz Ramirez Line Beit HaShoavah – Return, Repent, Rejoice https://beithashoavah.org
Key Takeaways
Isaac represents resurrection and redemption, symbolizing Hashem’s eternal promise to Israel.
The concept of Isaac returning as Samson illustrates a chiastic relationship in the Tanakh, bridging their stories.
Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson’s research links modern DNA to biblical patriarchs, affirming the Torah as a genetic blueprint.
Replacement theology distorts the narrative of the Tanakh, which serves as a family album for Klal Israel.
Hashem’s love and promise endures, as shown through the lives of Isaac and Samson, resisting opposing forces.
Most Christians and Muslims have never heard this sentence as the Torah intends. The third of the commandments is spoken.
“Why should I be bereaved of both of you in one day?” (Genesis 27:45)
Rivkah is not just a worried mother. She delivers the Third Commandment in Toldot, centuries before Sinai.
The Third Commandment in Toldot – Exact Parallel
Sinai (Exodus 20:7)
Toldot (Genesis 27:45)
לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת־שֵׁם־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא “You shall not take the name of Hashem your God in vain”
לָמָה אֶשְׁכַּל גַּם־שְׁנֵיכֶם יוֹם אֶחָד “Why should I lose both of you in one day?” – terror of false oaths causing double death
Rabbi David Fohrman points out: the deepest meaning of “taking God’s name in vain” is not just swearing falsely. It is invoking God’s name to justify something that will bring destruction while pretending it is holy.
Rivkah sees the future clearly: If Esau swears by God to take revenge, and Jacob is forced to defend himself, both sons could die on the same day—one by murder, one by execution. Two corpses because someone used God’s name to sanctify hatred.
That is the ultimate desecration of the Name.
Why This Destroys Replacement Theology
Every time a church taught that “God curses the Jews,” they did exactly what Esau threatened to do. When Islam claimed “the Jews corrupted the Torah,” they acted the same way. They took God’s name in vain. They used Scripture to justify hatred and dispossession.
Rivkah’s cry in Toldot is the Torah’s eternal protest. It stands against every false oath sworn “in the name of God.” These oaths aim to harm Jacob.
As Rabbi Dr. Akiva Tatz teaches: “The Jewish people remain alive for a specific reason. Every attempt to destroy us in God’s name violates the Third Commandment in Toldot.”
Internal Links – Keep Reading the Series
Essay 1: The Ten Commandments in Toldot – They Began with Rivkah, Not Sinai
Essay 2: The Second Commandment in Toldot – Esau’s Rage and “No Other Gods”
Why Does God Play Favorites? The Silence Cain Heard Wrong
From Crypto-Jewish Mexico to the Torah of My Fathers
Next in this 10-part series: Essay 4 – The Fourth Commandment in Toldot: “Stay a Few Days” – The First Shabbat in Exile
Shabbat Shalom from a Kohen. His mothers never stopped crying this cry. [Chazzan Gavriel ben David] Beit HaShoavah – Return, Repent, Rejoice https://beithashoavah.org
When the church taught me the Second Commandment was only about statues and idols, I learned something unexpected. 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
Watch Rabbi Fohrman lay this out:
Aleph Beta / YouTube Part 1
Aleph Beta / YouTube Part 2
Why This Matters for Jewish Chosenness
Every time Christianity or Islam claims the Torah’s commandments while rejecting the Jewish people, they repeat Esau’s original mistake.
They replace the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with the god of supersessionist revenge: “The Jews killed our savior” or “The Jews lost their chosenness.” That is modern avodah zarah—serving another god on the very face of the God who spoke to three million Jews at Sinai.
As Chazzan I teach in Esnoga Beit HaShoavah: “We are not hated because we are worse. We are hated because we are the living witness that the Second Commandment in Toldot still applies. There is only one God. He never annulled His covenant with Jacob.”
Internal Links – Continue the Journey
Essay 1: The Ten Commandments in Toldot – They Began with Rivkah, Not Sinai
Why Does God Play Favorites? The Silence Cain Heard Wrong
From Crypto-Jewish Mexico to the Torah of My Fathers – My Personal Return
The Passover Lamb Was Never Jesus – It Was the Egyptian God
Next in this 10-part series: Essay 3 – The Third Commandment in Toldot: “Why Should I Lose Both of You in One Day?”
Shabbat Shalom from the Chazzan carrying the same warning Rivkah gave, [Gavriel ben David ] Beit HaShoavah – Return, Repent, Rejoice https://beithashoavah.org
The article explores the connection between Rivkah and the Ten Commandments, emphasizing their roots in the Jewish family.
Rabbi David Fohrman highlights a chiastic structure that mirrors the Revelation at Sinai within Genesis 27-28.
The Ten Commandments in Toldot illustrate key principles that challenge replacement theology, underscoring the importance of Jewish heritage.
Cain’s story serves as a lesson on perceived favoritism from God, focusing on self-giving rather than comparison.
Understanding the deeper meanings in these narratives enriches the faith and identity of the Jewish people.
When I discovered I am a descendant of Aaron through the Diaz Ramirez crypto-Jewish family of Nuevo León, one question has never left me:
How can any religion claim to replace the Jewish people? As my Rabbi Dr. Akiva Tatz says ” you first must enjoy the question before you can enjoy the answer. It’s a bit like understanding Rivkah and the Ten Commandments, where the deeper you delve, the more you discover.
The Ten Commandments in Toldot – the words quoted by the entire world – were first whispered in a tent. A Jewish mother whispered them in Beersheba. The story of Rivkah and the Ten Commandments illustrates the profound connection between the Jewish mothers and their faith.
The Shocking Discovery Rabbi Fohrman Makes About the Ten Commandments in Toldot
In his groundbreaking Aleph Beta series on Parashat Toldot, Rabbi David Fohrman demonstrates something remarkable. He reveals that Genesis 27–28 is structured as a perfect chiastic mirror of the Revelation at Sinai. The Ten Commandments in Toldot are in the exact same order. They contain the exact same themes and key phrases that will later thunder in Exodus 20.
Watch the teaching that changed everything:
Part 1 on YouTube (Aleph Beta)
Part 2 on YouTube (Aleph Beta)
The Ten Commandments in Toldot – Side-by-Side Proof
#
Sinai (Exodus 20)
Rivkah’s Words in Toldot (Genesis 27–28)
1
“I am Hashem your God”
“My son, listen to my voice… do exactly what I command you” (27:8,13) – establishing divine authority
2
No other gods
Warning against Esau’s murderous hatred – serving the god of violence (27:41-42)
3
Do not take God’s name in vain
“Why should I lose both of you in one day?” – terror of false oaths (27:45)
4
Remember the Sabbath
“Stay with Laban a few days until your brother’s anger turns” – Shabbat rest in exile (27:44)
5
Honor father and mother
Jacob obeys his mother above Isaac’s mistaken blessing – the entire plot!
6
You shall not murder
Direct warning against Esau’s plan to kill Jacob
7
You shall not commit adultery
“Do not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan” (28:1)
8
You shall not steal
The blessing was “stolen” only in appearance – Rivkah insists it belongs to Jacob
9
You shall not bear false witness
The goatskin deception protects deeper truth
10
You shall not covet
Esau covets the blessing that was never his – root of the conflict
Why the Ten Commandments in Toldot Destroy Replacement Theology
This Rebecca Jacob Sinai mirror is the Torah’s way of shouting to Christianity and Islam. The Ten Commandments in Toldot were born inside the Jewish family. This occurred centuries before Sinai. You cannot inherit the commandments while rejecting the family that birthed them.
As Rabbi David Fohrman teaches, “The Jewish people are not chosen because we are better. We are chosen because we are the only nation that carries the historical event of Revelation in our national DNA.”
Internal Links to Related Articles on Beit HaShoavah
Essay 1: Why Does God Play Favorites? The Silence Cain Heard Wrong
My Return Story: From Crypto-Jewish Mexico Back to the Torah of My Fathers
The Tree That Christianity Got Wrong – Eden and Jewish Resurrection
Passover Lamb Was Never Jesus – It Was the Egyptian God
Next in this 10-part series: The Second Commandment in Toldot – Esau’s Rage and “No Other Gods”
Shabbat Shalom from a Chazzann who came home, [Gavriel ben David ] Beit HaShoavah – Return, Repent, Rejoice https://beithashoavah.org
Why Does God Play Favorites?
The Shocking Answer Hidden in the Story of Cain and Abel
We all know the children’s version of the story: Cain brings an offering. Abel brings an offering. God likes Abel’s better. Cain gets jealous and kills his brother. Moral of the story: Don’t be jealous.
But that version leaves the most troubling question completely unanswered:
Why did God reject Cain’s offering in the first place? Why would the Creator of the universe—who loves all His children—seem to play favorites with the very first two brothers in history?
For two thousand years Jewish and Christian readers have struggled with this. Many simply say, “Well, Abel brought the best (firstlings and fat), Cain just brought whatever.” But the Torah never actually says God told them to bring the best. In fact, the Torah never even commanded offerings at all! So on what basis did God “have regard” for Abel’s offering and not for Cain’s (Genesis 4:4-5)?
Rabbi David Fohrman points out something almost no one notices in the text:
The Hebrew phrase describing God’s response is deeply asymmetrical.
About Abel: וַיִּשַׁע אֶל־הֶבֶל וְאֶל־מִנְחָתוֹ “And He turned to Abel and to his offering.”
About Cain: וְאֶל־קַיִן וְאֶל־מִנְחָתוֹ לֹא שָׁעָה “But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn.”
The grammar itself is screaming at us: God is not evaluating the gifts in isolation. He is looking at the person and the gift together. The offering is an expression of the offerer.
Abel brings the firstlings and their fat portions because that is who Abel is—he gives of his essence, his very best, holding nothing back. Cain brings “an offering of the fruit of the ground”—perfectly adequate, but nothing in the text suggests it cost him anything deeply personal. It’s not that his offering is bad; it’s that it doesn’t reveal Cain.
God’s “rejection,” then, is not favoritism. It’s a mirror.
God is saying to Cain (without words, because sometimes love speaks through silence): “Cain, I want you. Show me you.”
Cain hears the silence as rejection instead of invitation. And instead of looking inward (“What could I have brought that would have been more me?”), he looks outward in rage: “Why him and not me?” Jealousy is born—the first human emotion after shame in the Garden—and with it, murder.
Fohrman’s staggering conclusion:
God introduces the appearance of favoritism on purpose. He creates the very first instance of “chosen vs. not chosen” not to alienate Cain, but to teach humanity the single most dangerous spiritual truth we will ever face:
When God seems to love someone else more than you, the problem is almost never that God loves you less. The problem is that you have stopped giving Him you.
This is the seed that will flower thousands of years later at Mount Sinai—the same question in national form: “Why this nation and not the others?” The midrash famously says God offered the Torah to every nation first and they all refused. But beneath that midrash lies the exact same principle we meet in Cain and Abel: God chooses those who choose to give Him their deepest selves.
Cain and Abel is not a story about why Abel was better. It is a story about why God sometimes withholds His face—to invite us to chase it.
And the tragedy is that Cain never learns the question behind the silence.
That question will echo through Ishmael, through Esau, through every instance of apparent divine favoritism in the Torah. And every time, Rabbi Fohrman teaches, God is doing the same thing He did with Cain:
In the Torah, we are introduced to the story of Cain and Abel in the Bible, from which themes of jealousy and rivalry emerge.
In the prophetic words of Isaiah 46:9-10, Hashem reminds us: “Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (Bible Gateway). This divine declaration isn’t mere poetry—it’s a roadmap where ancient biblical stories foreshadow modern challenges. As explored by Rabbi Manis Friedman in his insightful lecture (watch here), the tale of Cain and Abel introduces jealousy as a tool for teaching the morality of right and wrong. In this article, we’ll delve into how truth over jealousy shapes biblical narratives, from Genesis to Gaza, emphasizing Hashem’s eternal lessons. For more on spiritual warfare in Jewish perspective, check our article on Hashem’s non-physical nature.
The Introduction of Jealousy: Cain and Abel’s Moral Lesson
Genesis 4 recounts Cain and Abel’s offerings: Abel’s accepted, Cain’s rejected. Why the distinction? Rabbi Friedman explains it’s Hashem’s deliberate introduction of jealousy—not to harm, but to highlight morality. Cain, driven by envy, murders Abel, showing unchecked jealousy leads to destruction. Yet, this teaches that truth—right and wrong—must prevail over emotions. As Friedman notes, without such distinctions, free will vanishes. Explore similar themes in our post on the spiritual war and end-times prophecies.
This pattern of truth over jealousy echoes in today’s victim culture, where rich and poor, right and left, all claim grievance. What matters? Prioritizing Hashem’s moral framework.
Abraham’s Test in Gaza: Concession to Envy
In Genesis 21:22-34, Abraham forges a peace treaty with Abimelech, ceding wells in Gaza amid envy of his prosperity (Sefaria). Sages in Bereishit Rabbah view this as a faith test: Does Abraham trust Hashem’s land promise (Genesis 13:15) despite concessions? His goodwill toward envious neighbors foreshadows conflicts, but Hashem’s counsel stands. No two-state solution born of jealousy; truth demands morality’s triumph. For insights on Gaza in modern context, see our discussion on Charlie Kirk and Israel.
Isaac and the Philistines: Envy’s Territorial Grip
Genesis 26:12-16 details Isaac’s success provoking Philistine envy: “The Philistines envied him” (Bible Gateway). They sabotage his wells, echoing Cain’s rage. Isaac relocates, trusting divine blessing. This highlights resilience against jealousy, prefiguring claims by religions superseding Judaism. If truth is creation’s fabric, envy-fueled replacement theologies must yield. Learn more about Esau’s envy links in our Understanding Esau article.
Modern Implications: Truth Trumps Jealousy for Morality
Today, Christianity and Islam’s supersessionist claims mirror ancient envies. Yet, Isaiah affirms Hashem’s unchanging purpose. In a world of victims, Friedman’s teaching urges: Let truth dissolve jealousy. Gaza’s disputes? Abraham’s treaty warns against envy-driven compromises. Morality lives when truth reigns.
Join the conversation—contact us or follow at Beit HaShoavah. For deeper rabbinic insights, visit Chabad.org.
(Word count: 912)
The Hidden Echoes of Cain and Abel: A Midrash on James Chapter 4 in the Christian Bible
Drawing from Torah wisdom, this midrash interprets James Chapter 4 as an echo of Cain and Abel’s story in Genesis 4.[^1] Cain (Qayin in Hebrew) means “to acquire” or “fabricate,” symbolizing a quest for riches and self-reliance. Abel (Hevel) signifies “nothingness” or “vapor,” implying humility or low self-esteem before the divine. James 4’s warnings on desires and quarrels midrashically expand this, urging truth over jealousy. For interfaith explorations, read our piece on Judaism and Christianity’s parting.
James 4: Desires as Cain’s Acquisitive Spirit
“What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?” (James 4:1, NIV, Bible Gateway). This mirrors Cain’s envy-fueled murder. Rabbi Manis Friedman teaches Hashem introduced jealousy to teach morality—right trumps emotion.[^2] Cain fabricates his offering; Abel humbly surrenders. James warns covetousness leads to “kill” (James 4:2), alluding to Genesis. Dive into related prophecies in our spiritual war perspective.
Humility vs. Pride: Abel’s Nothingness in Action
James extols humility: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble” (James 4:6). Abel’s name evokes transience, a virtue in Psalms (Sefaria). Cain’s acquisition breeds slander (James 4:11), judging like Cain did Abel. For Christians, this ties to Jesus’ self-denial; from a Jewish view, it’s Torah’s choice gift.
Practical Lessons: Resisting the Devil’s Envy
“Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil” (James 4:7). Midrashically, Cain’s spirit is worldly friendship (James 4:4); Abel’s is mist-like planning (James 4:13-17). In social media quarrels, choose Abel’s humility. Hashem declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10, Bible Gateway).
Contact us or follow at Beit HaShoavah for more dialogues. Explore Rabbi Friedman’s talks on Chabad.org.
(Word count: 892)
[^1]: As a Jewish educator rooted in Torah study, I offer this midrash from a place of interfaith respect, not as a Christian adherent. My insights draw from Hebrew Scriptures and rabbinic tradition to bridge understandings.
[^2]: Rabbi Manis Friedman, “The Story of Cain and Abel,” YouTube lecture (watch here), emphasizing divine introduction of jealousy for moral teaching. I reference this as a Jewish voice, distinct from Christian theology.
The Tree of Life Paradox: A Foundational Inquiry for Jewish Theological Research and Project Understanding
The Tree of Life is a paradox that no one has examined. We are a dedicated agent committed to thorough Bible research. Also focus on disseminating foundational truths through rigorous project work and robust website SEO. We must delve into the origins of creation to enhance learning and theological insight. Our sages have studied the Torah for millennia. Through this focused study, they have successfully uncovered profound spiritual truths. These are truths that the broader world has often overlooked.
This essay focuses on the critical narrative concerning the Tree of Life (ToL) in the Garden of Eden. It addresses a central paradox that demands careful consideration. Why did Hashem create a Tree that was initially available? Why did it ultimately become off-limits to Adam?
The Garden of Eden is depicted as the ultimate ecosystem. It features lush rivers and a living breeze. At its center is the Tree of Life itself. It is described with its vibrant leaves, sturdy branches, thick trunk, and fruits that seemingly glow with promise. Our critical research shows that in the beginning, this Tree was the undeniable heart of the Garden.
The relationship between Adam and the Tree of Life was established through a clear, unequivocal Divine command. Hasham instructed Adam: “Of every tree of the garden, you may freely eat”. Crucially, the sources confirm that this universal permission extended specifically to the Tree of Life. The purpose of this initial, unrestricted access was monumental. Eating its fruit was meant to grant immortality. It allowed the seeker to “partake and live forever”.
This fundamental understanding establishes a core theological principle. The potential for eternal life was not contingent on a subsequent event or intervention. It was the original, established, and freely offered gift of creation. The Tree of Life was thus created not as a test of obedience. Instead, it was the very mechanism of everlasting existence.
This knowledge anchors our response to the essay’s central question: Why create a permissible tree that later became forbidden? The creation of the Tree of Life proves that Hashem initially intended for humanity to have perpetual life. His project design included immortal life. The Tree was established as the primary source of that enduring existence.
The prohibition against eating from the Tree of Life was enforced after Adam’s transgression. This transgression involved the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This event does not retroactively negate the reason for its creation. Instead, the boundary shows the immediate consequence of the initial error. It demonstrates the profound consequence of the removal of the ultimate gift of immortality, which was unconditional. The Tree was not created to be off-limits; it became off-limits because the state of perfection needed to enjoy its benefits had been forfeited.
This sequence provides a robust platform for theological inquiry. The presence and original permission granted to the Tree of Life underscore that the gift of immortality was foundational and inherent to humanity’s initial relationship with the Creator. This research confirms that the pathway to eternal life was present and available from the start. This is a key principle noted in associated research available via resources like Esnoga Beit HaShoavah.
——————————————————————————–
Footnotes
Excerpts from “TheTree.mp4ofLife.mp4”: Sages have delved into Torah, revealing truths. The Garden of Eden features the tree of life at the center, described with vibrant leaves, sturdy branches, thick trunk, and glowing fruits. Hasham commanded Adam, “Of every tree of the garden, you may freely eat,” which included the Tree of Life granting immortality, enabling one to “partake and live forever.” This information is relevant to the study of the Tree of Life.
One of the verses many people use is “The Stone the Builders Rejected.” Well, I want to discuss the idea of a foundation. It is the most important part of building a house—or, in our case, the Third Temple. If you get the foundation wrong, then the rest of the structure will be wrong.
This week’s Torah portion, Re’eh, underscores this through the Torah’s prohibition against “other gods which you have not known” (Deut. 11:26–28)—a divine warning against straying into unfamiliar worship that erodes the covenant bedrock laid by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As a Christian or Messianic, I want to highlight something. What you have accepted is new to you.
This invites us to rebuild on Torah’s unshakable ground.I would like to point to the proof that what you have rejected is “That Which You Have Not Heard” as a Christian or Messianic,
The Prophets Have Spoken
The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it,
3and many people shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
A Return To The Bible
Many Christians often turn to the Old Testament for insights into God’s nature. They refer to it as the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh. It also offers insights into His plan for humanity.
This week’s Torah portion, Re’eh (“Behold”), found in Deuteronomy 11:26–16:17, presents a critical choice. It presents the statement, “Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse. A blessing will come if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God. However, a curse will occur if you do not obey. You must not turn away from the way.
Do not follow other gods which you have not known” (Deut. 11:26–28). Moses delivered this passage to the Israelites. They were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land. It emphasizes fidelity to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There are emphatic warnings against idolatry. It also cautions against adopting foreign religious practices.
No New Deities, No Relaxing The Law
These practices include introducing new deities or modes of worship unknown to our shared forefathers. This essay is written for a Christian audience. I aim to explore how Re’eh serves as a divine safeguard against religions like Christianity. From a Jewish perspective, they diverge from the pure monotheism of the Torah.
We can examine Christian claims about Jesus fulfilling the Binding of Isaac. This is done by contrasting the oral traditions of Judaism and Christianity. We can also trace the non-Jewish origins of vicarious atonement. This shows why the Torah precludes belief in “that which you have not known.”
Ask Your Fathers, and They Will Tell You.
The Core Warning in Re’eh: No Room for New Gods
At the heart of Re’eh is Deuteronomy 13, “…worship ‘other gods which you have not known.’ This embodies the Torah’s prohibition against ‘other gods which you have not known,’ a test of our loyalty to Sinai’s singular God…”
A chapter that outlines safeguards against false prophets, dreamers, or even close family members who entice the people to worship “other gods which you have not known” (Deut. 13:2).
Even if such a figure performs signs or wonders that come true, the Torah commands: “You shall not listen to the words of that prophet.” God is testing you to know if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. The Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul (Deut. 13:3–4).
Put No Other Gods On My Face
This is not merely a prohibition against pagan idols, such as those of the Canaanites. It serves as a broader admonition against any innovation. Such innovations alter the worship of the one, eternal God revealed at Sinai.
From a Jewish viewpoint, this directly applies to Christianity. In the New Testament, Jesus is elevated to a divine status. He is considered part of the Trinity, also known as the “Son of God.” This concept is utterly foreign to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The Torah’s God is singular and indivisible, as affirmed in the Shema (Deut. 6:4), and any suggestion of a divine intermediary or incarnation would qualify as “other gods” unknown to the forefathers.
To Test You To See If You Love Me
Deuteronomy 13 warns that such teachings, even if accompanied by miracles. These teachings, like those attributed to Jesus, are a test of loyalty. Jews see this as a prophetic barrier against missionary efforts. Christianity transforms the character of a historical figure into a god-like being.
This transformation is precisely what the Torah forbids. This isn’t about rejecting Jesus as a teacher. It is about recognizing that his deification introduces a worship system alien to the covenant at Sinai.
Series: Part II
Contrasting Oral Traditions: From Sinai vs. From the Apostles
Re’eh explicitly warns against ‘gods you have not known.’ Here, the Torah’s prohibition against “other gods which you have not known” draws a line: Sinai’s continuity vs. apostolic innovations.
Judaism and Christianity both value oral traditions, but their sources and natures differ profoundly. In Judaism, the Oral Torah (Torah she-be’al peh) was given to Moses at Sinai. Its delivery occurred alongside the Written Torah. It has been faithfully transmitted through generations of sages—from Moses to Joshua and to the elders, prophets, and rabbis.
This Was The Lecture- Orally
This tradition, later compiled in the Mishnah and Talmud, clarifies and expands the Written Torah without altering its core monotheism. It stems directly from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ensuring continuity with the forefathers.
Christianity’s oral tradition originates from a unique source. It began with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in the first century CE. Before the Gospels were written (around 70–100 CE), stories of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection circulated orally among early followers.
From Father To Son
This tradition, as described by scholars, was sustained through community storytelling. It also evolved through hymns and prayers. This tradition evolved to explain Jesus’ role. It provided guidance for early churches. Paul, writing in the 50s CE, incorporated snippets of this oral material, such as accounts of the Last Supper and the resurrection (1 Cor. 11 and 15), which had been passed down before being formalized in writing.
Unlike Judaism’s Oral Torah, rooted in Sinai, Christianity’s tradition begins with Jesus. He is a figure not prophesied in this divine capacity by the Torah. The tradition develops through church fathers like Ignatius and Justin Martyr in the second century.
This creates a new narrative arc. It diverges from the forefathers’ covenant. It introduces concepts like the Trinity. Re’eh explicitly warns against these concepts as “gods you have not known.”
The Non-Jewish Origins of Vicarious Atonement
…unknown to the Torah. The Torah’s prohibition against “other gods which you have not known” is relevant to redemptive twists. It demands personal teshuvah over external saviors.
A cornerstone of Christianity is the belief that Jesus died for humanity’s sins, offering vicarious atonement—where one person’s sacrifice redeems others. This idea, however, has no roots in Jewish tradition and contradicts the Torah’s emphasis on personal responsibility and repentance.
In Judaism, atonement comes through teshuvah (repentance), prayer, charity, and animal sacrifices (when the Temple stood), but never through human sacrifice, which is abhorrent (Deut. 18:10). Each person atones for their own sins, as Ezekiel states: “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20).
Someone Died For Your Sins?
The concept of someone dying for sins evolved within Christianity, not Judaism. Early theories include the Ransom Theory (3rd century, Origen). In this theory, Jesus’ death paid a debt to Satan or God. Christus Victor (dominant pre-12th century) portrays Jesus’ death as a victory over evil powers.
Satisfaction Theory (Anselm, 11th century) suggests that it satisfied God’s honor. The Penal Substitution Theory, popularized by Reformers like Calvin, views Jesus’ death as a punishment in the sinner’s place. Its purpose was to appease God’s wrath.
These ideas draw loosely from Jewish sacrificial imagery but twist it into a human-centered redemption unknown to the Torah. Jews argue that if vicarious atonement were needed, the Torah would have revealed it at Sinai rather than through a later figure.
Moreover, some streams of Judaism, particularly Kabbalah, incorporate gilgul (reincarnation), where souls return to rectify past failings. Originating in post-Talmudic Kabbalah (12th century onward, e.g., Sefer ha-Bahir), gilgul allows for multiple lifetimes to achieve perfection, making a one-time savior unnecessary. While not universal in Judaism, this belief underscores self-reliant soul rectification over external redemption.
Christian Claims About the Binding of Isaac: A Misplaced Typology
violating Re’eh’s warning against innovations. This showcases the Torah’s prohibition against “other gods which you have not known” in action. It guards the Akedah’s merit for Israel alone.
Christians often see Jesus as foreshadowed in the Binding of Isaac (Akedah, Gen. 22), where Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his “only son” parallels God’s sacrifice of Jesus. Typologies highlight similarities. Both are “only begotten sons” and carried wood for the sacrifice. The event occurs on the mountain of Moriah, which is linked to Calvary. This interprets the Akedah as prefiguring Jesus’ crucifixion for atonement.
Jews rebut this as a retroactive imposition. The Akedah tests Abraham’s faith, not prophesies a messiah; God provides a ram, halting human sacrifice forever. Isaac isn’t killed, so it can’t foreshadow a death for sins. Rabbinic tradition views it as a merit for Israel, not a messianic template. Introducing Jesus here adds a foreign layer, violating Re’eh’s warning against innovations.
Conclusion: Heeding the Call to Behold
Or the allure of foreign traditions. For Jews, Christianity represents precisely what the Torah’s prohibition against “other gods which you have not known” forbids.
Re’eh invites us to “behold” the choice before us: fidelity to the God of our forefathers or the allure of foreign traditions. For Jews, Christianity, with its new oral tradition, vicarious atonement, and typological readings, represents “that which you have not known.”
As Christians, reflecting on these differences may deepen appreciation for the Torah’s unyielding monotheism. Ultimately, Re’eh calls us back to the pure covenant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—without additions or intermediaries.
Hazan Gavriel ben David
Footnotes:
All biblical quotes from the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh.
For deeper Jewish perspectives on Deuteronomy 13 and false prophets, see resources from Jews for Judaism.
On gilgul, consult kabbalistic texts like those of Isaac Luria.
Christian atonement theories are summarized in theological works like those of Gustaf Aulén.
Vayera is a Torah portion from the Book of Genesis (Chapters 18:1–22:24) that begins with the Hebrew phrase meaning “and he appeared”.
This parashah is known for exploring themes of faith, hospitality, and divine justice.
In this series of lectures, we will examine traditions. Traditions of Jews and Christians. How do those traditions influence us in how we look at scriptures?
When I speak with Christians, they tell me what they think the Bible says. So, I ask them where they get that tradition. You see, we all have a tradition that explains what the Bible says.
The strongest supporters of truth are the Christian and Messianic Jewish world, and those who claim to follow the Torah, and who also claim that the Jewish people have missed the coming of their Messiah.
Today, I would like to look at the Holy Torah and see if the traditions of the Christian and Messianic world follow the Torah Law.
How the Commandments Provide a Detailed List of Things Not to Do
Re’eh’s commandments, particularly in Chapters 11–13, outline a detailed prohibitions against idolatry, framing it as straying from the “known” path of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These aren’t vague warnings but specific directives to avoid corruption by foreign influences:
Do not follow unknown gods or practices: Explicitly, avoid “other gods which you have not known” (Deut. 11:28; 13:2), even if enticed by miracles, prophets, or family—treat such as tests of loyalty (Deut. 13:3–4).
Do not adopt foreign worship sites or methods: Destroy pagan altars, pillars, and idols in the land; worship only at God’s chosen place (Deut. 12:2–4), not scattering offerings everywhere like the nations.
Do not eat or handle blood improperly: Spill blood on the ground like water in kosher slaughter (Deut. 12:16, 23–24), avoiding pagan blood rites.
Do not imitate abominable national practices: Shun “every abomination that the Lord hates” (Deut. 12:31), including burning children as offerings—God despises such acts.
Do not add or subtract from commandments: Observe exactly what’s commanded, without innovation (Deut. 13:1), ensuring fidelity to the revealed Torah.
Do not show mercy to idolaters: Even close kin enticing to idolatry must be stoned, without pity (Deut. 13:7–11), to purge evil.
Do not be swayed by signs or wonders: Ignore prophets whose predictions come true if they lead to unknown gods (Deut. 13:2–6).
Do not do what is right in your own eyes: Repeatedly, act only as “right and good in the sight of the Lord” (Deut. 12:8, 25, 28), rejecting subjective morality.
These form a comprehensive safeguard, emphasizing relationship-based worship over power-driven or innovative deviations.
How Each of The Torah Themes Disqualifies Jesus
Re’eh, mirrored in the Akedah, highlights God’s hatred of child sacrifice and demand for “known” worship. Applied to Christianity, each disqualifies Jesus as a divine figure or sacrificial redeemer, as his role introduces “unknown” elements foreign to the Torah’s God—elevating a human to godhood, promoting human sacrifice for atonement, and diverging from Abraham’s proven relationship. Here’s how each theme connects:
Do what is yashar (good and straight) in God’s eyes: Re’eh repeats this, contrasting human eyes (subjective morality) with God’s, as Abraham did in the Akedah by trusting known goodness. Christianity claims Jesus fulfills the law but adds “new commandments” (John 13:34), redefining righteousness through faith in him. This disqualifies Jesus by innovating beyond the Torah, doing what’s “right” in Christian eyes but straying from the forefathers’ known path.
Serve God only in the place He chooses (Mount Moriah/Temple): Re’eh mandates centralized worship at God’s selected site, foreshadowed in the Akedah where Abraham obeys at Moriah. Christianity shifts this to Jesus as the “new temple” (John 2:19–21), allowing decentralized faith in him anywhere, bypassing the Torah’s chosen place. This disqualifies Jesus by introducing an “unknown” intermediary, straying from the forefathers’ site-specific covenant.
God’s Name should be on that place: In the Akedah, Abraham names the site “Hashem yireh,” affirming God’s singular presence. Re’eh echoes this for the Temple. Christianity attributes divine names/titles to Jesus (e.g., “Emmanuel,” “Son of God”), placing God’s “name” on a human figure unknown to Abraham. This disqualifies Jesus as idolatry, equating a man with God’s essence in a way the Torah rejects.
Serve Him by offering sacrifices (burnt offerings/olos): The Akedah features an olah, but God substitutes the ram, rejecting human offering. Re’eh specifies animal burnt offerings at the Temple. Christianity portrays Jesus as the ultimate human burnt offering (Hebrews 10:10), dying once for all sins. This disqualifies him, as Re’eh deems human sacrifice abominable—God hates it, never intending it even in the test.
It’s okay to eat animals like a ram (ayil) or deer (tzvi): Re’eh permits eating such clean animals post-slaughter, with the ram in the Akedah symbolizing acceptable substitution. Christianity’s Eucharist symbolically “eats” Jesus’ body/blood (John 6:53–56), turning a human into consumable sacrifice. This disqualifies Jesus by mimicking pagan rites, inverting the Torah’s ram-as-substitute into forbidden human symbolism.
Spilling of blood (as in kosher slaughter): Re’eh requires blood spilled on the ground, not consumed, echoing the Akedah’s averted human bloodshed. Christianity centers on Jesus’ blood spilled for forgiveness (Matthew 26:28), elevating human blood as redemptive. This disqualifies him, as the Torah prohibits blood manipulation in worship and abhors human spilling for atonement—personal repentance suffices.
Not doing abominable things like sacrificing children: Re’eh explicitly hates child sacrifice, clarifying the Akedah as a non-literal test. Christianity depicts God sacrificing His “only begotten Son” (John 3:16) for humanity’s sins, a divine child offering. This directly disqualifies Jesus, portraying God as endorsing what He abhors—an “unknown” immoral act, unproven in Abraham’s relationship.
The Book of Genesis, or Sefer Bereishit, is a profound blueprint and cause of Jewish history. Drawing from traditional Jewish sources—ranging from the Talmud and Midrash to the mystical insights of the Zohar and the Vilna Gaon—we will uncover how Genesis is not merely a collection of ancient stories but a divine framework that shapes reality, time, and the Jewish people’s destiny. At the heart of our lecture today lies an extraordinary axis: the year 1948 in the Jewish calendar (Anno Mundi, or AM), marking Abraham’s birth, and the year 5708 AM, corresponding to 1948 CE, when the modern State of Israel was reestablished. These two points, separated by millennia yet united by the number 1948, serve as pivotal anchors, illustrating how Genesis encodes the past, present, and future of the Jewish narrative. To deliver this in about 30 minutes, I’ll structure our journey as follows: First, we’ll examine Genesis as the cosmic blueprint, rooted in its opening word Bereishit and the six alefs of its first verse. Then, we’ll delve into how Torah verses correspond to historical years, with 1948 AM and 5708 AM as our axis. Along the way, we’ll touch on the Vilna Gaon’s teaching that Bereishit contains all 613 commandments, including circumcision, and contrast this with the rejection of Ephraim to highlight the triumph of Judah’s lineage. Finally, we’ll conclude with how these elements affirm Genesis as the cause of history, resonating even with personal stories like my own discovery of Jewish heritage at age 33, as a descendant of Kohanim from the Diaz Ramirez family. Let us begin at the beginning—Bereishit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” From a Jewish perspective, this is no poetic myth but a historical declaration. The Jewish Encyclopedia describes Genesis as “a historical work,” recounting the primal history of humanity and the early story of Israel. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in his writings, calls it a “philosophy of the human condition under God’s sovereignty,” where events like creation, the Flood, and the patriarchal covenants are factual records that set the moral and spiritual stage for all that follows. Yet, Genesis is more than a chronicle; it is the blueprint of reality itself. Kabbalistic tradition, as articulated in the Zohar, teaches that God looked into the Torah to create the world. The Torah pre-exists creation, and its letters are the building blocks of existence. The Sefer Yetzirah, an ancient mystical text, explains that God formed the universe with 22 foundation letters and 10 sefirot, divine emanations. In Genesis 1:1, we find six instances of the letter alef (א)—in Bereishit, bara, Elohim, et, ve’et, and ha’aretz. The alef, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, symbolizes divine unity and has a gematria value of 1, but its full spelling (alef) means “thousand.” Thus, these six alefs represent 6,000 years of human history, as per the Talmud in Sanhedrin 97a: “The world endures for six thousand years: two thousand years of chaos (tohu), two thousand years of Torah, and two thousand years of the Messianic era.” This 6,000-year cycle mirrors the six days of creation, with the seventh day of Shabbat foreshadowing eternal rest and redemption. Chabad teachings elaborate that the alef bridges heaven and earth—its form resembling a yud above (divine), a yud below (earthly), connected by a vav (channel). In Genesis, these alefs encode the timeline: the first 2,000 years encompass the chaos from Adam to Abraham, the next 2,000 bring the Torah at Sinai, and the final 2,000 herald the Messiah. We stand today in the sixth millennium, nearing that redemptive threshold, where events like Israel’s rebirth in 5708 AM signal the dawn of Messianic times. Now, let’s zoom in on the opening word itself: Bereishit. The Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, teaches that this single word contains all 613 commandments of the Torah. In his commentary Aderet Eliyahu, he explains that Bereishit’s six letters (ב-ר-א-ש-י-ת) encapsulate the essence of Jewish law, with each letter or combination hinting at specific mitzvot. For instance, Rabbi Akiva Tatz, in his lecture “Torah: Cause and Reality,” cites the Gaon to highlight how the commandment of circumcision (brit milah) is embedded in Bereishit. The letters bet (ב) and resh (ר) form the root of brit (covenant), directly alluding to Genesis 17:10, where God commands Abraham: “Every male among you shall be circumcised.” This mitzvah is the seal of the covenant, transforming physical creation into spiritual purpose. Other commandments flow from Bereishit’s letters as well. The bet symbolizes belief in God (Mitzvah #1), the foundation of monotheism declared in creation. Resh hints at Shabbat observance (Mitzvah #155), resting as God did after six days. Shin evokes the prohibition against idolatry (Mitzvah #2), affirming God’s unique sovereignty. Tav, the final letter, points to establishing courts of justice (Mitzvah #176), ensuring righteousness in the land. The Zohar in Bereishit 8a reinforces this: “Bereishit contains all the commandments, for each letter unfolds a moment in time, from creation to redemption.” Midrash Tanchuma on Bereishit 1 adds: “The world was created for the Torah and the covenant of Israel, hidden in Bereishit.” Thus, Genesis is the cause of history—the Torah’s laws embedded in its first word drive the narrative forward, from creation’s blueprint to humanity’s moral journey. This brings us to the axis of our lecture: 1948 AM and 5708 AM. In traditional chronology, as detailed in Seder Olam Rabbah, Abraham’s birth occurs in 1948 AM, approximately 1813 BCE. This marks the pivot from chaos to the Torah era, as Abraham’s covenant initiates the Jewish people’s mission. Mystically, each Torah verse corresponds to a year, per the Vilna Gaon: the 1,948th verse is Exodus 14:13, where Moses declares, “Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the Lord, which He will work for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you shall never see again.” This verse depicts the splitting of the Red Sea, a miraculous redemption fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:13–14: slavery followed by liberation. Midrash Shemot Rabbah 21:5 links it directly: “For the merit of Abraham, I will split the sea.” Thus, 1948 AM—Abraham’s birth—aligns with a verse of national birth, the Exodus as the first step toward the Promised Land. Fast-forward to 5708 AM, or 1948 CE, when the State of Israel was reestablished after 2,000 years of exile. This modern miracle echoes Abraham’s covenant, fulfilling promises like Deuteronomy 30:3–5: “God will restore you to the land.” The corresponding 5,708th Torah verse is Deuteronomy 16:18: “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.” Ramban comments: “This ensures righteous governance in the land, the foundation of dwelling securely.” In 1948 CE, amid the ashes of the Holocaust, Israel declared independence, establishing a just society in the ancestral homeland—a direct echo of Abraham’s legacy. The numerical parallel—1948 AM to 5708 AM—is no coincidence in Jewish thought. It reflects divine synchronicity, where history cycles through the 6,000-year timeline encoded in the six alefs. Abraham’s birth in the second millennium initiates the Torah era; Israel’s rebirth in the sixth heralds Messianic fulfillment. As Rabbi Tatz notes, the Torah is the cause of reality—events unfold from its blueprint. To contrast this redemptive arc, consider the rejection of Ephraim, a theme woven into Genesis’s tribal history. In Genesis 48–49, Jacob blesses Ephraim above Manasseh, yet later scriptures reveal Ephraim’s fall. Psalm 78:67 states: “He rejected the tent of Joseph; he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loved.” Rashi explains this as the transfer of kingship to David after the Northern Kingdom’s idolatry. Hosea 4:17 laments: “Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone.” Seven verses in total point to this rejection, including Hosea 5:9 (“Ephraim shall become a desolation”) and Jeremiah 7:15 (“I will cast out… the offspring of Ephraim”). Ephraim’s sins—idolatry and division—contrast with Judah’s fidelity, leading to the Southern Kingdom’s survival and eventual restoration in 1948 CE. This shift, foreshadowed in Genesis 49:10 (“The scepter shall not depart from Judah”), underscores Genesis as history’s cause: tribal choices ripple through time, culminating in Judah’s triumph. On a personal note, as someone who discovered my Jewish heritage at 33, from a Crypto-Jewish family—the Diaz Ramirez line, descendants of Levi with my grandfather a Kohen—this axis resonates deeply. My uncles’ DNA confirmed our Kohen marker, tracing back through Mexico and Germany, possibly linking to ancient priests like those in Abraham’s era. Circumcision, encoded in Bereishit, symbolizes this covenantal continuity, much like Israel’s rebirth in 1948 CE. In conclusion, Genesis is the blueprint and cause of Jewish history—a divine text where letters like the six alefs map 6,000 years, words like Bereishit encode 613 commandments, and verses align with pivotal years. The axis of 1948 AM and 5708 AM binds Abraham’s covenant to Israel’s modern miracle, transforming exile into redemption. As the Zohar teaches, “God looked into the Torah and created the world.” May we continue to study this blueprint, finding our place in its eternal narrative. Thank you for your attention—questions are welcome.
Tisha B’Av Reflection: Drawing Strength from Israel, the Lion and King Hezekiah
As the Lion of Israel rises in the midst of the nations, attempts are made to control the land of Israel and destroy her people. Despite these attempts, the strength of Israel the Lion is revealed.
As the fast of Tisha B’Av draws to a close, my heart turns to Israel, the Lion’s enduring legacy. It is the fierce, unyielding spirit of our patriarch Jacob. This spirit symbolizes resilience in the face of exile and destruction. This solemn day commemorates the fall of both Temples. It evokes the profound heartache of our ancestors. Their tears still echo through Jewish history. Yet, in this moment of mourning, I find solace. I hold onto the promise of renewal. This includes the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of peace in the Land of Israel.
“These I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” (Isaiah 56:7)
These words from the Prophet Isaiah stir a vision of unity and holiness, a beacon for our fractured world. Today, as we navigate suffering and war in the Land of Israel and beyond, the heartache of today is evident. It mirrors the ruins of yesterday. Another year passes without the House of Hashem standing tall in Jerusalem—another cycle of brokenness that tests our faith. But despair need not define us. As a proud Jew, I see a path forward rooted in our sacred traditions, guided by the spirit of Israel the Lion.
The Story of Hezekiah: A Timeless Answer to Modern Challenges
Enter King Hezekiah, whose tale in the Book of Kings offers profound hope for our era. Facing Assyrian siege and divine judgment, Hezekiah turned to prayer, Torah observance, and unwavering trust in Hashem. His reforms—cleansing the Temple, reinstating Passover, and rallying the people—averted disaster and sparked revival. This narrative isn’t mere history; it’s a blueprint for today. In the face of existential threats to the Land of Israel, Hezekiah’s story teaches us an important lesson. We must begin with spiritual renewal. Only then can physical redemption occur.
It’s time for Jews worldwide to boldly share the Torah. Its wisdom on justice, compassion, and covenant is vital. A world desperate for moral clarity needs this wisdom. Let us amplify the enduring spirit of Israel the Lion. It roars in defiance against oppression. It inspires not just survival but triumph. And yes, we must claim our land. It’s the biblical heartland promised to Abraham’s seed. We stand firm against division and doubt. We do this just like Israel the Lion would.
Rebuilding the House of Hashem: Our Collective Mission
Central to this vision is the rebuilding of the Temple, the House of Hashem, where heaven and earth meet. Drawing inspiration from Israel the Lion’s tenacity and Hezekiah’s faith, we can transform mourning into action. There are several initiatives aimed at achieving this sacred goal. These include educating on Temple rituals. Advocating for Jewish sovereignty in Jerusalem is another critical step. Additionally, fostering global prayer for peace plays a crucial role. Tisha B’Av isn’t just a lament; it’s a catalyst for Jewish renewaland the dawn of messianic hope.
In sharing these reflections, I invite you—Jew and gentile alike—to join this journey. Explore the Torah’s teachings, honor the Land of Israel, and envision a house of prayer for all peoples. From the ashes of Tisha B’Av, may the spirit of Israel the Lion guide us to rebuild. Let it inspire us to unite and rebuild the Temple.
How Israel Can Transform Global ISOLATION Into HONOR and PRAISE – Tisha B’Av Message
For over 3,350 years, Jewish tradition has preserved a powerful narrative about the lamb in the Exodus story—a narrative starkly different from the Christian and Messianic interpretation that identifies Jesus (Yeshua) as the “Lamb of God.” Christians assert that the Passover lamb prefigures Jesus’ sacrificial death, drawing a typological link between the lamb’s blood in Exodus and salvation through Christ. In contrast, Jewish oral tradition, as recorded in the Midrash, Talmud, Mishnah, and Zohar, teaches that the lamb was not a symbol of redemption in the Christian sense but rather the god of the Egyptians, which the Israelites killed to affirm their loyalty to Hashem. This essay explores this Jewish understanding, rooted in the events of the Exodus, and highlights the divergence in oral traditions surrounding Passover.
The Lamb as Egypt’s God: A Test of Faith
The story of the Passover lamb begins in Exodus 12:3-6, where Hashem commands the Israelites: “Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: ‘On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb… and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the month… and kill it at twilight.’” For Jews, this act was not merely a ritual prelude to liberation but a radical rejection of Egyptian idolatry. The Midrash, specifically Shemot Rabbah 16:2, explains that the Egyptians worshipped the lamb as a deity, often associated with the zodiac sign Aries or gods like Khnum, the ram-headed creator. By taking and slaughtering this lamb—publicly, before Egyptian eyes—the Israelites defied their oppressors’ religion, proving their exclusive devotion to Hashem.
The Talmud amplifies this interpretation. In Shabbat 87b, it notes that the 10th of Nisan, when the lambs were selected, fell on a Shabbat that year, making the act a double affirmation of faith: honoring Shabbat while rejecting idolatry. The Tosafot (medieval Talmudic commentators) add that this provoked the Egyptian firstborn, who questioned their parents’ inaction as their sacred animal was prepared for slaughter. This aligns with Exodus 8:26, where Moses tells Pharaoh, “It would not be right to do so, for the offerings we shall sacrifice to the Lord our God are an abomination (to‘evat) to the Egyptians. If we sacrifice offerings abominable to the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us?” Here, to‘evah (abomination) suggests something taboo or sacred to Egypt, not merely repulsive, reinforcing the lamb’s divine status in their culture.
Stone Us!
For 3,350 years, Jewish oral tradition has framed this slaughter as an act of obedience, not atonement. The Mishnah Pesachim 10:5 details the Passover sacrifice’s meticulous execution, emphasizing its role as a communal affirmation of the covenant with Hashem. Unlike the Christian view of a sin-offering lamb, the Jewish Korban Pesach (Passover offering) was a celebration of liberation, not a mechanism for forgiveness. The Zohar (Bo 36b) adds a mystical layer, suggesting the lamb’s blood on the doorposts symbolized the destruction of Egypt’s spiritual power, channeling divine judgment against their gods, as stated in Exodus 12:12: “I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt.”
Rashi, the 11th-century commentator, ties this to Exodus 12:23, noting that the blood was a sign for the Israelites—not to appease God, but to mark their allegiance amid divine wrath. The Mechilta de’Rabbi Ishmael (a halakhic midrash on Exodus) further stresses that the command to kill the lamb tested the Israelites’ courage after centuries of enslavement, asking: Would they risk Egyptian retaliation to obey Hashem? This narrative, preserved orally since 1313 BCE and later written in these sources, underscores a triumph over idolatry, not a prefiguration of a savior.
The Christian Claim: Jesus as the Passover Lamb
In contrast, Christians and Messianics interpret the Passover lamb through a lens absent from Jewish tradition. The New Testament, particularly John 1:29 (“Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”) and 1 Corinthians 5:7 (“For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed”), casts Jesus as the ultimate sacrificial lamb. This draws on the timing of his crucifixion during Passover and the idea of his blood redeeming humanity, akin to the lamb’s blood sparing the Israelites. The Book of Revelation 5:6 reinforces this with the image of a slain lamb, linking it to atonement—a concept foreign to the Jewish Korban Pesach.
This interpretation emerged centuries after the Exodus, rooted in Christian theology rather than the Jewish oral tradition present at the event. While Jews see the lamb as a historical and cultural defiance of Egypt, Christians overlay a typological framework, retroactively assigning messianic significance. Jewish tradition, however, knows no such figure in the Passover narrative—our redemption came through Hashem alone, not a mediator.
The Oral Tradition Divide
The Jewish oral tradition, codified in the Talmud, Midrash, and beyond, reflects what “Jews have known and taught since going out of Egypt”—that the lamb was a means to an end, not an end itself. The Tanchuma (Bo 4) recounts how the Israelites’ act shattered Egyptian morale, fulfilling Exodus 11:7: “But against any of the children of Israel not a dog shall sharpen its tongue.” This was about divine supremacy, not substitutionary sacrifice. Conversely, Christian oral tradition, developing post-Second Temple, reimagines Passover as a shadow of Christ’s mission, a narrative absent from the Jewish experience of the original event.
The Sfat Emet (19th-century Hasidic commentary) ties the lamb to Shabbat HaGadol—the Shabbat before Passover—calling it the moment Jews first observed Shabbat by rejecting Egypt’s gods, a national coming-of-age. No hint of a messianic lamb appears here or in earlier sources like the Mishnah or Gemara. For Jews, the Exodus lamb remains a historical symbol of liberation and loyalty, not a theological precursor to a figure 1,300 years later.
Conclusion: Two Lambs, Two Truths
For 3,350 years, Jewish tradition has held that the Passover lamb was the Egyptian god, killed to prove obedience to Hashem—a story of defiance and deliverance preserved in our oral law. Christians see a different lamb, one tied to Jesus and atonement, a perspective born from a later tradition. The Exodus pictures—lambs selected, slain, and marked on doorposts—tell a Jewish story of faith in action, not foreshadowing. As the Midrash, Talmud, and Zohar affirm, our lamb was no savior; it was a statement: Hashem alone is God.
The Torah is unequivocal: Hashem is not a physical being and cannot be represented as such. Deuteronomy 4:15-16, which is cited, is part of the revelation at Horeb (Sinai), where the Israelites heard Hashem’s voice but saw no form, reinforcing His non-physical nature. Numbers 23:19 further states, “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind.” The Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5) prohibits making or worshiping any image, including human forms, as divine. For Jews, this is a foundational “known”—Hashem’s nature is immutable, non-corporeal, and beyond human embodiment.
Deuteronomy 4
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.“Only take care, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your children and your children’s children—how on the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, the Lord said to me, ‘Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children so.’Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Christians, however, assert that “God can do anything,” including becoming a man in the form of Jesus (John 1:14, “The Word became flesh”). From a Jewish perspective, this claim contradicts Hashem’s commandments and nature. Rabbi Fohrman teaches an algebraic approach, which likely aims to frame this as a logical contradiction, using a simple equation to show that the Christian belief in Jesus as God cannot hold true given the Torah’s axioms.
Creating a Simple Algebraic Equation
Let’s use algebra to illustrate this point in a way that’s clear for a Christian reader unfamiliar with Jewish theology. We’ll define variables based on the “knowns” from the Torah and the Christian claim, then show the logical inconsistency.
Define the Variables:
Let H H H represent Hashem (God).
Let M M M represent a man (a physical, human form).
Let J J J represent Jesus, whom Christians claim is both God and man.
Jewish “Known” (Axiom from the Torah):
Deuteronomy 4:15-16 and Numbers 23:19 establish that Hashem cannot be a man. In algebraic terms, this is a fundamental rule: H≠M H \neq M H=M. Hashem’s nature is non-physical, and He cannot take on a human form or be worshiped as such.
Christians assert that Jesus is both God and man (the incarnation). In algebraic terms, this is expressed as J=H J = H J=H (Jesus is God) and J=M J = M J=M (Jesus is a man). Combining these, the Christian belief implies H=M H = M H=M (since if J=H J = H J=H and J=M J = M J=M, then H=M H = M H=M).
The Equation and Contradiction:
Christian Claim:
Christians assert that Jesus is both God and man (the incarnation). In algebraic terms, this is expressed as J=H J = H J=H (Jesus is God) and J=M J = M J=M (Jesus is a man). Combining these, the Christian belief implies H=M H = M H=M (since if J=H J = H J=H and J=M J = M J=M, then H=M H = M H=M).
“Truth Value”:
Start with the Christian claim: J=H J = H J=H and J=M J = M J=M.Substitute: If J=H J = H J=H and J=M J = M J=M, then H=M H = M H=M.But the Torah’s axiom is H≠M H \neq M H=M—Hashem cannot be a man.This creates a contradiction: H=M H = M H=M (Christian claim) cannot be true if H≠M H \neq M H=M (Torah’s commandment).
In this algebraic setup, the Torah’s commandment is the “known” or axiom: Hashem cannot be a man (H≠M H \neq M H=M). The Christian belief that Jesus is God (J=H J = H J=H) and a man (J=M J = M J=M) leads to the conclusion that H=M H = M H=M, which directly contradicts the Torah’s clear teaching. For Jews, this isn’t about limiting Hashem’s power but honoring His commandments—He forbids us from worshiping Him as a man or through any form (Deuteronomy 4:16). The equation shows that the Christian claim cannot hold true without violating Hashem’s own words, which are eternal and unchanging (Malachi 3:6, “I the Lord do not change”).
Let T T T represent a true statement.The Torah’s known: H≠M H \neq M H=M, so the statement “Hashem is not a man” = T T T (true).The Christian claim: H=M H = M H=M (through Jesus), so the statement “Hashem is a man” = F F F (false, per the Torah).Equation: If H=M H = M H=M, then T=F T = F T=F, which is a contradiction. Therefore, H≠M H \neq M H=M, and Jesus cannot be Hashem.
You hold your Bible dear, seeing in its pages a straight path: the gospel to the Jew first (Romans 1:16), a Messiah who cannot return until the Jews say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matthew 23:39), and a Temple rebuilt for the anti-Messiah to fulfill Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 9:27). But what if I told you that the Torah—our shared foundation—reveals a deeper narrative, one where your faith, rooted in Rome, is cast as Esau, locked in a spiritual war with Ishmael and the House of Jacob? Hashem declares, “I am God… declaring the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:8-10), and through Jewish tradition, He has told us this story from Genesis onward. Let me share this perspective, drawing from the Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and insights from Jim Long and Rabbi Efraim Palvanov, to reveal Esau’s identity, his modern form in 2025, and the cosmic battle unfolding before the Messiah’s coming.
Who Is Esau in Jewish Tradition?
Brad Scott’s View: Esau as Muslim/Arab Edom
Brad Scott, as noted in the WildBranch Ministries update, was a teacher focused on the Hebrew roots of scripture, emphasizing a return to biblical fidelity over traditional Christian norms. His interpretation of Esau as the Muslim or Arab Edom reflects a Christian dispensationalist lens, common among evangelical prophecy teachers. Scott likely drew on passages like Obadiah 1:18 (“the house of Esau stubble”) and Ezekiel 35:10-15, which prophesy Edom’s desolation due to its hostility toward Israel. In this view, Edom symbolizes modern Arab nations, particularly those in conflict with Israel, such as Jordan (historically linked to Edom’s territory) or broader Muslim states. Scott’s teaching, as part of WildBranch’s mission, would frame this as a literal fulfillment in the end times, with Israel (Jacob) triumphing over Edom (Arabs/Muslims) during a climactic war, possibly Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38-39). This aligns with Christian Zionist narratives that see Israel’s modern conflicts as prophetic signs, a perspective Scott might have shared given his focus on scripture over cultural Christianity.
Contrasting Christian and Jewish End-Time Prophecies
Esau, born to Isaac and Rebekah, is Jacob’s twin, yet his opposite (Genesis 25:25). Named for his hairy appearance, he’s also called Edom—“red”—after craving Jacob’s red lentil stew and selling his birthright (Genesis 25:30). The Torah paints him as a hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob dwells in tents, studying (Genesis 25:27). But Jewish tradition deepens this portrait. The Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 63:6) casts Esau as rebellious even in the womb, fighting Jacob, a foreshadowing of enmity. By age 13, he’s a ne’er-do-well, committing grave sins (Tanchuma, Toledot 2), and the Zohar (I:186b) sees his soul as one needing rectification across generations, a “tragically failed hero,” as Rabbi Palvanov notes in his lecture “How Esau Became Rome” (Part 1, ~5:00).
The Tanakh amplifies this. Obadiah 1:18 declares, “The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble… there shall be no survivor for the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken.” Malachi 1:2-3 adds, “I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated,” setting Edom’s hills as a desolation. Why such hostility? History and typology provide the answer.
Esau Becomes Edom, Then Rome
Esau’s descendants settle in Seir, becoming the Edomites (Genesis 36:8). By the Second Temple period, Edom’s identity shifts. The Idumeans, Edomite descendants, are forcibly converted to Judaism under John Hyrcanus (Josephus, Antiquities 13.9.1), but their loyalty is suspect. Herod, an Idumean, becomes Rome’s puppet king in Judea, cementing the Edom-Rome equation (Palvanov, ~10:00). The Talmud (Sanhedrin 12a) and Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 65:21) identify Esau/Edom with Rome, especially after the Temple’s destruction in 70 CE. Rabbi Akiva, per Genesis Rabbah, sees Esau’s “hands” as Rome’s oppression, crushing Jacob’s voice.
When Constantine converts Rome to Christianity in the 4th century, Edom evolves again. Jim Long, in Blood Brothers, argues that Esau symbolizes Rome’s spiritual legacy—Christianity itself (Chapter 3). The Zohar (II:94a) hints at Esau’s soul cycling through history, opposing Jacob’s mission. For Jews, Esau isn’t just a man but a system: Rome, then Christendom, perpetually seeking to supplant Jacob’s birthright.
Hashem’s End from the Beginning
Hashem told us this end from the beginning. Genesis 25:23—“Two nations are in your womb… the older will serve the younger”—sets the stage. Obadiah’s “no survivor for the house of Esau” and Isaiah 46:10’s “My counsel shall stand” promise Jacob’s triumph. The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 9a) divides history into 6,000 years: 2,000 of chaos, 2,000 of Torah, and 2,000 of Messiah. In 5785 (2024-2025), we’re in the messianic era, yet the Messiah delays due to our sins. The Zohar (III:212b) predicts a star on Elul 25, 5784 (September 27, 2024), heralding upheaval—coinciding with events like Nasrallah’s death, seen by some as Ishmael’s decline.
For Christians, the Temple’s rebuilding signals the anti-Messiah (Daniel 9:27). Jewish tradition agrees it’s a prerequisite for redemption (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Melachim 11:1), but the Messiah ben David, not an anti-Messiah, will oversee it. The war of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38-39) looms, where Jacob’s fire consumes Esau’s stubble—Christianity’s system, not its people, per Rav Kook’s hope for reconciliation (Rabbi Sacks, Covenant & Conversation, 2008).
A Spiritual War and a Call to Reflect
You may not see your faith as Esau, but Jewish tradition does. Rome’s legacy—Christianity—seeks to convert Jews, believing it hastens the Messiah. Yet Hashem’s plan, revealed from Genesis, ensures Jacob’s victory. The third-day motif in Torah—Abraham seeing Moriah (Genesis 22:4), Sinai’s revelation (Exodus 19:11)—marks divine turning points, not a singular resurrection. Our Messiah comes not to die but to reign, rebuilding the Temple for worship, not desecration.
In 2025, as Israel faces threats and celestial signs unfold, consider this: Hashem’s Torah tells the end from the beginning. Esau and Ishmael’s spiritual systems may oppose Jacob, but the fire of Jacob and the flame of Joseph will prevail. Will you align with Hashem’s eternal covenant with Israel (Psalm 147:19), or cling to Rome’s legacy? The choice is yours, but the outcome is written.
The story of Adam and Eve in the Torah is one we think we know: a paradise lost, a forbidden fruit, a fall from grace. But what if we’ve missed the deeper invitation woven into the very first commandment God gave humanity? Recently, Rabbi David Fohrman and Rabbi Friedman have offered a fresh lens on Genesis 2–3, turning the narrative upside down. They suggest that the command to eat from all the trees—except one—wasn’t a setup for failure, but a divine gift: the gift of choice, the seed of gratitude, and a path to trust in Hashem. Let’s explore this idea, drawing from Torah, Midrash, and Talmud, to see how Eden wasn’t about restriction, but about freedom.
The Commandment That Opens the World
Genesis 2:16–17 reads: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘From all the trees of the garden you may freely eat; but from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat, for on the day you eat from it, you will surely die.’” At first glance, it’s a warning, a boundary. But Rabbi Fohrman asks us to pause: Why focus on the “no” when the “yes” comes first? God doesn’t just permit eating; He commands it—achol tochal, “you shall surely eat.” Every tree is a gift, described as “pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Gen. 2:9). The Garden bursts with abundance, and Adam and Eve are invited to partake.
“A world of abundance gifted by Hashem.”
This isn’t a passive allowance; it’s an active call. Midrash Rabbah (Bereishit 15:7) expands this, noting that the trees weren’t just food but symbols of divine generosity—each one unique, a testament to Hashem’s creativity. The Talmud (Berachot 58a) echoes this gratitude: “One who enjoys something of this world without a blessing, it’s as if he steals from God.” In Eden, eating was meant to teach Adam and Eve to say “thank You”—to recognize every bite as from Hashem.
The Tree That Belonged to Hashem
Then there’s the exception: the Tree of Knowledge, off-limits, belonging solely to God. Rabbi Friedman might frame this as a deliberate contrast—not to tempt, but to define. If all trees are gifts, this one’s exclusion creates a boundary, a space where Adam and Eve can say “no” back to God. Without it, they’d be like angels, or, as Rabbi Fohrman puts it, “old computers”—programmed to obey, input yielding output, no room for will. The Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 19:3) hints at this: “Why was it called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Because it gave the power to choose between them.” Choice didn’t exist until that tree stood apart.
“Hashem’s tree, the root of human freedom.”
The Talmud (Shabbat 55b) wrestles with human agency: “Everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven.” Eden’s design mirrors this—Hashem hands over the world, but keeps one tree to teach trust. Eating everywhere else was saying, “I trust Your gifts.” Touching that tree was questioning, “Do I need more?”
Here’s where it gets profound. Rabbi Fohrman suggests Eden wasn’t about perfection without choice—it was about planting the seeds of relationship. Angels don’t choose; they serve. Humans, though, can turn to Hashem out of love, not just duty. The command to eat was a lesson in gratitude: every fruit a reminder that “this is from You, God.” The Tree of Knowledge, left untouched, was trust: “I don’t need to take what’s Yours—I have enough.”
The Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 16:5) imagines God showing Adam the Garden, saying, “All this I made for you.” It’s a parent handing a child a feast, leaving one dish aside—not to tease, but to teach appreciation. When Eve, then Adam, eat from that tree (Gen. 3:6), it’s not just disobedience—it’s a break in trust, a grab for control. Yet even then, Hashem’s response (clothing them, Gen. 3:21) shows mercy, a chance to rebuild that bond.
“The moment trust faltered.”
Beyond Eden: Choosing Like Humans, Not Angels
So why does this matter? Rabbi Friedman might say it’s our story too. We’re not in Eden, but we face trees daily—choices between taking and trusting. The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3a) teaches, “Greater is one who is commanded and fulfills than one who isn’t commanded and fulfills.” Why? Because choice makes obedience meaningful. Angels can’t grow; we can. Eden wasn’t a trap—it was a classroom.
“Our Eden today: choosing gratitude.”
This reading flips the script. The first commandment wasn’t about saying “no” to sin—it was about saying “yes” to Hashem’s world, learning to thank Him, trusting Him. The Tree of Knowledge wasn’t a curse, but a gift of freedom, mishandled but not irredeemable. As we reflect on Adam and Eve, let’s ask: How do we choose? Do we eat from the gifts with thanks, or reach for what’s not ours?
“Did the events of September 27, 2024—Nasrallah’s death, a comet’s peak—echo the Zohar’s star? How do we discern messianic signs today?”
One might ask why 2025. In our tradition, the Torah gives a yearly, monthly, and weekly period based on the words and verses in the Torah. One section of the Torah that provides insight into the future is the Torah Parshah Mekeitz. There, the number of words is 2025. Mekeitz in Hebrew means “The End”.
The Zohar states that “in the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will rebuild Jerusalem,” accompanied by the appearance of “one firm star, glowing with seventy pillars of fire and seventy sparks flashing from it in the middle of the Firmament.” This star will be visible for seventy days.
The Star Of Jacob Prophecy
Comet C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS) was discovered on January 9, 2023, by the ATLAS telescope at Tsuchinshan Observatory in China. It’s a long-period comet from the Oort Cloud, with an orbit so vast it was last visible from Earth about 80,000 years ago. In 2024, it became a standout celestial event. It reached perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) on September 27, 2024—coincidentally the date you mentioned—when it was about 0.39 AU (58 million kilometers) from the Sun. At that point, it was still too close to the Sun to be easily visible from Earth, appearing low on the horizon just before sunrise in the constellation Sextans.
Zohar III 212b
Context of Zohar III 212b
The Zohar, attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (2nd century CE) but likely compiled by Rabbi Moses de León in 13th-century Spain, is a mystical commentary on the Torah. Volume III corresponds to the section on Leviticus (Vayikra), and 212b falls within the portion Emor (Leviticus 21-24). This passage is part of a broader discussion on cosmic signs, divine judgment, and the redemption process, often linked to messianic times. The Zohar frequently uses symbolic language—stars, angels, nations—to describe spiritual and historical events.
Text and Interpretation
Zohar III 212b specifically mentions a celestial event tied to the “Star of Jacob” from Numbers 24:17 (“A star shall come out of Jacob”). Here’s a summary based on standard editions (e.g., the Sulam commentary by Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag) and English translations like the Pritzker Edition:
The Star Prophecy: The passage describes a star rising in the east on the 25th day of the sixth month (Elul in the Jewish calendar), visible for 70 days, signaling the beginning of upheavals and the Messiah’s emergence. It states that this star, fiery and red, will clash with other celestial forces, causing turmoil on Earth—wars, destruction, and the fall of nations—before the Messiah ben David appears. After 12 months, the star shifts west, marking further stages of redemption.
Ishmael Connection: The Zohar ties this to “Ishmael’s dominion,” suggesting that during his allotted time of power (interpreted as Islamic rule), this star will herald his decline. It contrasts Ishmael’s wild, earthly strength with the divine light of Jacob’s star, symbolizing Israel’s ultimate triumph.
Timing and Symbolism: The text uses gematria and astrological imagery (e.g., the star under the influence of Mars) to encode its meaning. The 25th of Elul, in 2024, aligned with September 27—your earlier focus—fueling online speculation about events like Comet C/2023 A3 or Nasrallah’s death as fulfillments.
Rabbinic and Mystical Views
Rabbi Isaac Luria (Ari): Later Kabbalists, building on the Zohar, see this star as a literal and spiritual sign, possibly a comet or nova, heralding the Messianic age. The Ari links Ishmael’s “wild donkey” nature (Genesis 16:12) to his temporal dominance, ending with this cosmic shift.
Modern Commentators: Rabbi Matityahu Glazerson and others have cited Zohar III 212b to connect 2024 celestial events (e.g., T Coronae Borealis or the comet) to messianic predictions, though traditional scholars like Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu caution against over-literalizing mystical texts without clear historical confirmation.
Historical Context: Written during Muslim rule in Spain, the Zohar’s Ishmael references often symbolize medieval Islamic powers, projecting their eventual fall to Jewish redemption.
What Happened On The 27th of September
September 27, 2024: The Zohar’s mention of the 25th of Elul matches that date in 2024, when Nasrallah was killed and Comet C/2023 A3 hit perihelion. Some online forums (e.g., X posts from 2024) and prophetic voices linked this to the Zohar’s star, though no star or comet was dramatically visible that day—visibility peaked later.
Ishmael: The Zohar portrays Ishmael’s descendants as a force of chaos, akin to the “wild donkey,” whose power wanes as the star rises, contrasting with Zechariah 9’s humble king on a donkey.
Zechariah 9: While Zechariah’s king brings peace, the Zohar’s star precedes upheaval, suggesting a preparatory phase before ultimate salvation.
Conclusion
Zohar III 212b envisions a fiery star as a harbinger of messianic turmoil, with Ishmael’s decline as a subplot. It’s less about Jesus’ time (which lacked such a star) and more an eschatological forecast.
The section begins with a discussion of cosmic signs heralding redemption. It states that on the 25th day of the sixth month (Elul), a star will appear in the east, fiery and red, visible for 70 days. This star, linked to the “Star of Jacob” (Numbers 24:17), is said to be under the influence of Mars, symbolizing war and judgment.The text describes this star engaging with other celestial forces, causing trembling in the heavens and on Earth. For 12 days, it will provoke chaos—kings will fight, nations will fall, and blood will flow—marking the start of the Messiah’s revelation.After 12 months, the star moves to the west, signaling further stages: the weakening of Ishmael’s dominion (seen as a historical oppressor of Israel), the rise of Jerusalem’s glory, and the Messiah ben David’s ultimate emergence to rule with peace.Ishmael is depicted as a wild, resisting force whose power peaks before this star’s appearance, only to crumble as divine light prevails. The passage ends with an allusion to the Temple’s restoration and God’s judgment on the nations.
“in the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will rebuild Jerusalem,”
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
The oracle of the word of the Lord is against the land of Hadrach and Damascus is its resting place
What Is The Estalogical Time of Zecharia’s Prophecy
Zechariah 9 Prophecy Overview
Zechariah 9, written around 520-518 BCE during the Persian period after the Babylonian exile, is a prophetic oracle envisioning God’s judgment on Israel’s enemies and the restoration of Zion. Verses 1-8 list regions—Hadrach, Damascus, Hamath, Tyre, Sidon, and Philistine cities—facing divine judgment, suggesting a sweeping campaign from north to south. Verse 9 then shifts to a messianic vision: a humble king riding a donkey, bringing peace and salvation to Jerusalem, often interpreted as a future ruler contrasting with the warlike conquerors of the earlier verses.
Time of Jesus vs. Zechariah 9
Zechariah 9 Context (6th Century BCE):
The prophecy reflects a post-exilic hope for Judah’s restoration under Persian rule. The enemies listed (e.g., Hadrach, Damascus) were part of the Aramean-Syrian sphere, historically antagonistic to Israel. The “king on a donkey” symbolized a peaceful, righteous ruler, distinct from chariot-riding conquerors like Alexander the Great (who later swept through in 333 BCE) or earlier Assyrian/Babylonian kings.
The donkey imagery evokes humility and peace (Judges 10:4, 1 Kings 1:33), contrasting with militaristic power. Scholars see this as a messianic promise, possibly fulfilled in part by the Hasmonean rulers but fully realized in later Jewish and Christian eschatology.
Time of Jesus (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE):
Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:1-11, John 12:12-15) explicitly fulfills Zechariah 9:9, as the Gospels cite it. This occurred around 30 CE, during Roman occupation of Judea, with Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate’s governorship. Crowds hailed Jesus as “Son of David,” aligning with the messianic king of Zechariah, though his “salvation” was spiritual, not military, disappointing those expecting a political liberator.
Unlike Zechariah’s broader vision of judgment on nations and dominion “from sea to sea” (9:10), Jesus’ time saw no immediate overthrow of Rome or neighboring powers like Damascus. His entry emphasized humility and peace, not conquest, contrasting with Zechariah’s dual theme of judgment and triumph.
Contrast:
Scope: Zechariah 9 envisions a king who ends war (9:10, “He will cut off the chariot”), ruling universally, while Jesus’ ministry focused on personal redemption, not geopolitical upheaval. The judgment on Hadrach and Damascus didn’t occur in Jesus’ lifetime—Rome dominated the region.
Timing: Zechariah’s oracle may point to a future messianic age (some rabbis link it to Messiah ben David), whereas Jesus’ life is seen by Christians as a partial fulfillment, with full realization deferred to a Second Coming.
Tone: Zechariah blends judgment and peace; Jesus’ entry emphasizes only the latter, subverting expectations of a warrior-king.
Who is Hadrach?
Hadrach (Hebrew: Ḥadrakh) is a mysterious name in Zechariah 9:1, appearing nowhere else in the Bible, leading to debate among scholars and rabbis:
Geographical Theories: Many identify Hadrach with Hatarikka, a city-state near Hamath in northern Syria, mentioned in Assyrian records (e.g., Annals of Tiglath-Pileser III, 8th century BCE). It may have been a regional power or coalition in the Aramean sphere, north of Damascus. Some suggest it’s a scribal error or symbolic name, but its pairing with Damascus implies a real location.
Rabbinic Views: The Talmud and Midrash rarely address Hadrach directly. Rashi links it to “the deep river” (a possible geographic clue), while some later rabbis (e.g., Radak) see it as part of Syria’s domain, perhaps a forgotten city by Zechariah’s time. Mystical traditions occasionally tie it to eschatological foes.
Modern Scholarship: It’s likely an archaic name for a northern Syrian region, possibly near Aleppo or Hamath, significant in the 8th-6th centuries BCE but faded by Jesus’ era, explaining its obscurity.
No Longer Obscure
“three high structures of that city will fall and a great edifice will fall.”
A Roman City
Yes, Beirut, Lebanon, was indeed a significant city during Roman times. Originally a Phoenician settlement known as Berytus, it came under Roman control in 64 BCE when Pompey the Great annexed the region as part of the Roman province of Syria. Under Roman rule, Berytus grew into a prosperous and important city, particularly renowned for its law school, which became one of the most prestigious in the Roman Empire. The city was granted the status of a Roman colony by Emperor Augustus around 14 BCE, and it was renamed Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Berytus in honor of his daughter Julia.
The Romans invested heavily in Berytus, constructing temples, a theater, baths, a hippodrome, and other infrastructure typical of Roman urban planning. Archaeological evidence, such as the Roman baths and sections of colonnaded streets uncovered in modern Beirut, attests to its Roman heritage. The city thrived as a center of trade, culture, and education until it was devastated by a massive earthquake in 551 CE, after which it began to decline.
So, yes, Beirut was very much a Roman city at one point in its long history!
Damascus in the Time of Jesus
Political Status: By Jesus’ time, Damascus was part of the Roman Empire, within the province of Syria (annexed in 64 BCE by Pompey). It briefly fell under Nabataean control (circa 37-34 BCE), but under Augustus (27 BCE – 14 CE) and Tiberius (14-37 CE), it was firmly Roman, governed by a legate in Antioch. Herod the Great and his sons had influence nearby, but Damascus was a key urban center under Roman administration.
Culture and Economy: A thriving trade hub on the Via Maris and routes to Arabia, Damascus was cosmopolitan, with Greek, Roman, Aramean, and Jewish populations. It had a significant Jewish community (Josephus notes thousands killed there in 66 CE during the First Jewish Revolt). Its wealth came from textiles, glass, and agriculture (e.g., Damascene plums).
Condition: Unlike Zechariah 9:1’s oracle of judgment, Damascus faced no divine destruction in Jesus’ day. It was stable, fortified, and prosperous, though subject to Roman taxes and occasional unrest. Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) highlights its importance as a Christian foothold post-Jesus.
Contrast with Zechariah: The prophecy suggests Damascus as a “resting place” for God’s word or wrath, implying its downfall or submission. In Jesus’ time, it remained a powerful city, unjudged, its role more administrative than prophetic.
Synthesis
Zechariah 9’s Vision: Foresees a divine sweep against Hadrach and Damascus, followed by a humble king’s triumph. Hadrach was likely a northern Syrian entity, and Damascus a regional capital, both ripe for judgment in the prophet’s context.
Jesus’ Era: Hadrach was long irrelevant, possibly a historical memory, while Damascus thrived under Rome. Jesus’ donkey-mounted entry fulfilled Zechariah 9:9 symbolically, but the broader judgment and dominion of 9:1-10 awaited a future fulfillment, per Christian and some Jewish views.
Rabbinic Take: Rabbis see Zechariah 9 as messianic, with Ishmael-like “wild donkey” traits (from Genesis) irrelevant here—Jesus’ donkey ride is meekness, not wildness. Hadrach remains obscure, and Damascus’s role is more historical than immediate.
He shall be a wild donkey of a man
One Would Ask what the setting or context of this prophecy is.
Genesis 16:12: “his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen”.
Riding A Donkey
Rabbinic interpretations of Ishmael being described as a “wild donkey of a man” (Hebrew: pere adam) in Genesis 16:12 vary widely, reflecting both the complexity of the Hebrew text and the diversity of Jewish thought. This phrase, spoken by the angel of the Lord to Hagar, has been analyzed by rabbis and scholars over centuries, often focusing on its literal, metaphorical, and prophetic implications. Here’s a synthesis of key rabbinic perspectives, drawing from traditional sources and commentaries, without reproducing copyrighted excerpts directly.
The Hebrew term pere refers to a wild donkey (onager), an animal known for its untamed nature, strength, and preference for roaming freely in the wilderness. Many rabbis interpret this as a description of Ishmael’s character and destiny, as well as that of his descendants. Rashi (11th-century French rabbi), one of the most influential commentators, explains that “wild donkey of a man” suggests Ishmael will be a free-spirited, independent figure who loves the wilderness and lives as a hunter or nomad. He connects this to Ishmael’s lifestyle as an archer in Genesis 21:20, emphasizing his untamed, roaming nature rather than a settled existence.
Nachmanides (Ramban, 13th-century Spanish rabbi) offers a deeper nuance. He suggests that pere adam implies Ishmael will be a “wild-ass man accustomed to the wilderness,” seeking sustenance and living in conflict—”devouring all and being devoured by all.” Ramban sees this as a prophecy about Ishmael’s descendants, often identified with Arab tribes, who would be numerous, warlike, and perpetually at odds with others, including their kin. He interprets the phrase “his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him” as a prediction of a turbulent, combative existence.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (19th-century German scholar) takes a slightly different angle, focusing on the psychological and moral dimensions. He argues that “wild donkey” highlights Ishmael’s inability to bear constraint—whether societal, rational, or moral. Hirsch sees Ishmael as embodying unrestrained passion and lust, a man who stands apart, defiantly independent, yet not necessarily evil by nature. This wildness, he suggests, makes Ishmael a figure who resists subjugation but also struggles to align with communal harmony.
Some rabbis, like Ibn Ezra (12th-century Spanish commentator), emphasize the unrestrained quality of Ishmael’s life among people, portraying him as a rebel against human norms. Others, such as Onkelos (in his Aramaic Targum), translate “wild donkey” more starkly as “one who kills people,” implying a violent streak, though this is less common among later interpreters. Rabbi Chaim Vital (16th-century Kabbalist) ties Ishmael’s wildness to a nomadic, desert-dwelling identity, distinct from settled nations, likening his descendants to robbers who raid and retreat.
A notable modern perspective comes from Rabbi Joseph Hayyim Sonnenfeld (19th-20th-century Jerusalem scholar), who initially questioned how a human created in God’s image could be likened to a donkey. After witnessing what he perceived as the crimes of Ishmael’s descendants in Israel, he flipped the question: how could a donkey be compared to Ishmael? Yet, he maintained that this wildness isn’t an absolute condemnation—Ishmael retains the potential for redemption by channeling his passion toward holiness, such as accepting Isaac’s leadership and biblical authority.
Across these views, rabbis don’t uniformly see “wild donkey” as an insult. Some frame it as a promise of freedom and resilience for Hagar’s son, contrasting with her enslaved state—Ishmael will not be tamed or owned. Others view it as a neutral or even positive trait, akin to the wild donkey’s depiction in Job 39:5-8, where God praises its liberty and strength. However, many also connect it prophetically to historical conflicts, particularly between Ishmael’s descendants (often linked to Arabs or Muslims) and Isaac’s (the Jewish people), seeing it as an enduring trait of independence and strife.
In short, rabbis interpret Ishmael as a “wild donkey” to mean a fierce, free, and often contentious figure—untamed like the animal itself—whose legacy is both a blessing (numerous progeny, independence) and a challenge (conflict with others). The image evokes a spectrum of qualities: strength, defiance, and potential for good or ill, depending on how that wildness is directed.
The Zohar states that “in the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will rebuild Jerusalem,” accompanied by the appearance of “one firm star, glowing with seventy pillars of fire and seventy sparks flashing from it in the middle of the Firmament.” This star will be visible for seventy days.
It specifies: “And [the star] will be seen on the sixth day, on the 25th day of the sixth month. It will be gathered on the seventh day, at the end of seventy days.”
On the first day of its visibility, “it will be seen in the city of Rome,” where “three high structures of that city will fall and a great edifice will fall.” The ruler of that city will die, and the star’s influence will spread globally, sparking wars and the rise of a “great king.”
Later, the Holy Land will tremble, revealing a cave from which the Messiah emerges.
The Star Of Yaacov
A Prince of Rome Shall be Killed
Israel kills Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in air strike on Beirut
Hezbollah confirms Nasrallah’s killing as Israel says it hit the group’s leaders at their headquarters in south Beirut.
Beirut, Lebanon, was indeed a significant city during Roman times. Originally a Phoenician settlement known as Berytus, it came under Roman control in 64 BCE when Pompey the Great annexed the region as part of the Roman province of Syria. Under Roman rule, Berytus grew into a prosperous and important city, particularly renowned for its law school, which became one of the most prestigious in the Roman Empire. The city was granted the status of a Roman colony by Emperor Augustus around 14 BCE, and it was renamed Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Berytus in honor of his daughter Julia.
The Romans invested heavily in Berytus, constructing temples, a theater, baths, a hippodrome, and other infrastructure typical of Roman urban planning. Archaeological evidence, such as the Roman baths and sections of colonnaded streets uncovered in modern Beirut, attests to its Roman heritage. The city thrived as a center of trade, culture, and education until it was devastated by a massive earthquake in 551 CE, after which it began to decline.
So, yes, Beirut was very much a Roman city at one point in its long history!
The “sixth month” in Jewish tradition is Elul, the month preceding Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah). The text pegs this event to the 25th of Elul, a Friday (sixth day), suggesting a precise calendrical marker for this eschatological moment.
Imagine a retrospective report on March 14, 2025, reflecting on late 2024: “On September 22, 2024—the 25th of Elul—few could have predicted the seismic events about to rock the Middle East. That Sunday, a quiet day before the High Holidays, now seems a tremor signaling the earthquakes to come. Five days later, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah fell in Beirut, a strike some call a judgment on Israel’s foes. By December 8, Bashar al-Assad’s regime crumbled in Damascus, shaking the region’s power structure. Was Elul 25 the unnoticed epicenter of this upheaval, as ancient texts like the Zohar hint?”
Jewish Understanding of Messiah vs. Ishmael and Esau
Ishmael: In Genesis 16:12, Ishmael is the “wild donkey of a man,” whose hand is against all. Rabbinic and Kabbalistic sources (e.g., Zohar III 212b, Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 32) often identify his descendants with Arab or Islamic nations, seen as historical foes of Israel. The Zohar ties his “dominion” to a pre-messianic era, ending with a star signaling his fall.
Esau (Edom): Genesis 25-27 depicts Esau as Jacob’s rival, with Edom as his lineage. Midrash (e.g., Bereishit Rabbah 63:9) and Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b) equate Edom with Rome, later extended to Christendom in medieval exegesis (e.g., Rashi on Genesis 27:40). Esau represents physical and spiritual opposition to Israel’s
Cultural and Religious Discrepancies in Mark 16:1: An Analysis Through the Lens of Jewish Tahara
The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 16, Verse 1, presents a narrative that has drawn scrutiny from scholars of religious studies due to its apparent divergence from established Jewish customs. The verse reads:
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.”
This passage describes three women intending to perform a burial-related task—anointing the body of Jesus—following his crucifixion. However, this action conflicts with a fundamental Jewish practice known as Tahara, the ritual purification and preparation of the deceased for burial. Within Jewish tradition, Tahara is a gender-segregated process: men prepare male bodies, and women prepare female bodies. This segregation upholds principles of modesty and respect, deeply embedded in Jewish law (Halacha) and observed consistently across Jewish communities.
Given this context, the notion that Jewish women—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome—would undertake the anointing of a male body, as depicted in Mark 16:1, appears culturally implausible. Such an act would contravene the norms of Tahara, raising significant questions about the narrative’s alignment with Jewish customs of the period. For a text regarded by many as divinely inspired or historically authoritative, such as the Christian Bible, this discrepancy prompts a critical inquiry: how could a document claiming to represent the “word of God” misalign with well-established religious practices of the culture it describes?
Reconciling Belief and Cultural Truth
This tension between the Gospel account and Jewish tradition invites broader reflection on the nature of the Christian Bible. If the text is intended to reflect historical events or divine will, the portrayal of women engaging in a male-specific burial rite suggests either a lack of familiarity with Jewish customs or an intentional narrative choice that prioritizes theological messaging over cultural accuracy. Scholars might argue that this reflects the Gospel’s audience—likely a Gentile or mixed community less familiar with Jewish law—rather than a strictly Jewish one bound by Halacha. Nevertheless, for those who view the Bible as an infallible source, this discrepancy poses a challenge to its credibility as a record of Jewish life and practice.
The Appeal of Jewish Tradition in the Abrahamic Context
This issue also resonates with contemporary shifts within the Abrahamic faiths. Increasingly, individuals are drawn to the Jewish tradition, as embodied in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), which emphasizes ethical living and communal responsibility over narratives of miraculous resurrection. Unlike the Christian New Testament, where raising the dead features prominently (e.g., Jesus’ resurrection), the Tanakh focuses on “raising the living”—offering a practical, verifiable framework for human conduct and societal cohesion. This distinction may account for the growing interest in Judaism among those seeking a faith grounded in observable truths rather than belief in supernatural events.
Conclusion
The depiction in Mark 16:1 of women preparing to anoint Jesus’ body highlights a significant departure from the Jewish practice of Tahara, where gender roles in burial preparation are strictly delineated. This anomaly challenges the Christian Bible’s consistency with Jewish customs and invites critical engagement with its historical and cultural dimensions. For scholars and lay readers alike, such discrepancies underscore the importance of approaching religious texts with an awareness of their cultural context and narrative intent. In this light, the Jewish tradition, with its emphasis on lived practice and ethical clarity, offers an alternative perspective—one that resonates with those prioritizing truth as a known, rather than merely believed, foundation for faith.
Scientists expect Star of Jacob to appear this month.
Efraim Palvanov, a teacher and author, writes the blog Mayim Achronim(Final Waters), named for the little-known Jewish ritual of washing the fingers after a meal. Like the eponymous mitzvah, the blog covers Jewish subjects that are misunderstood or not normally discussed. In a recent lecture, Palvanov described the current wars in Ukraine and Israel as consistent with end-of-days predictions recorded in classical Jewish literature.
Palvanov emphasized that he was not making a prediction or a prophecy but was describing an astronomical event as described in Jewish literature
“We know that probably one of the oldest prophecies and traditions about the Moshiach (Messiah) comes from Balaam, a Gentile prophet who came to curse Israel but couldn’t curse them,” Palvanov said. “Instead, he gives a prophecy that actually says, ‘I will tell you what will happen at the end of days.’
What I see for them is not yet, What I behold will not be soon: A star rises from Yaakov, A scepter comes forth from Yisrael; It smashes the brow of Moab, The foundation of all children of Shet.
I once heard a teacher say, So, you call yourself Jewish?
Well, how do you call yourself Jewish if you do not know our history?
By the way, it is one of the 613 commandments.
To know our history will amaze you, and you will know that there is an Almighty.
The time of Chanukkah was right before the rise of Christianity and the rule of Edom/Rome/Christianity. I often ask people where was the third capital of Rome located. How can someone understand the influence of Rome today if you do not know the history of Rome and the Jewish people?
Devarim 32:7
Remember 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.