Posted in Torah

Hominids vs Mankind

Following listening to a podcast by Nehemia Gordon called “Hebrew Voices” where Nehemia spoke with Dr Gerald Schroder I found myself ushered on to a wild ride I never saw coming. At this point (Nov 2016), I’m a few weeks in and my head is spinning with both the coherence I’m finding with Scripture,  answers to things I’ve wondered, and a rush of ideas about the possible implications.

I already have more than I can organize, write or communicate. I’m more about simply note taking and tracking ideas for now, but it is hard to shake that I’m hip deep into a fundamental shift in something fairly profound. While most things only appear significant in hindsight, at times we tend to get indicators while we are in it. This is on par with times previous

So if this “neshamah” is the difference, and Adam was already existing prior to the infusion of “the neshamah“, existence is not the same thing as “being alive”. Animals were existing, some possibly human like in form and function. But once Yah breathed the neshamah into a specific one, the bible begins the story and a separation occurs.

There is an idea about the breath of YHVH making Adam (mankind) a living soul. YHVH taking existing creatures and made them aware of Yah by this change. Dr. Gerald Schroder has written extensively about this. This has a basis within the idea of a long earth creation and guided evolution consistent with the fossil record and the idea of time being relative to the observer, as well as the creation account having 2 perspectives. Hominids were around, but until Yah breathed the unique “neshamah” into the Adamah, and then man(kind) became a “Living Soul” as opposed to the other hominids. And the Bible itself works from that reference point forward.

Using this idea as somewhat of a thought experiment, it leads to interesting insights.

When Cain was sent away, the people who would kill him could very well be other hominids, without the neshamah. The special mark could have been something to scare them away.

This is even more interesting when you think about the garden itself. Mankind was taken from where they were formed, and placed in a garden. The garden was not the place of physical formation. By all appearances, the garden environment was a school. The real original kinder garden.

In addition, if the above idea of parallel hominids is true, it was the first separation of Yah about the animals. The adamah became a “set apart”, or “holy” people. They were given a chance to develop and grow in relation to Yahweh, in a pristine environment. While we don’t know the goal in a direct sense, we can infer a lot about it.

Were Adam and Havah, and therefore Cain, Abel, and Seth interacting with these hominids? Were they exercising their leadership over them? Were they having sexual relations… i.e. marrying them? Were these hominids developing into the Nephilim via either literal supernatural guidance that was evil, or genetic selection into bigger and more violent beings?

Were angels or “watchers” the original caretakers of Earth and the natural world, and was Yah training up beings made in Yah’s own image in the “Kinder Garden” to eventually come forth and demonstrate and guide creation in Torah? Is the millennial reign simply a repeat wheel within a wheel of this pattern?

Nephesh vs Neshamah vs Ruach

Nephesh = Soul, but also desires, appetites, (Instincts?)

Yom Kippur – Nephesh

Ruach – breath, spirit


What about being “Naked”

Naked isn’t shameful…. it is a description of an ANE (Ancient Near East) perspective that describes the difference between animals, and even children and mature adults. It describes a qualitative difference between someone who is unaware of cultural norms. Yah NEVER describes nakedness itself as evil, but does instruct us to be covered and the scripture uses “uncovering the nakedness” is an idiomatic phrase meaning sexual intercourse. Priests are also not allowed to use steps so that their bodies would be exposed. This also probably happens to be something pagan religions would do, as an enticement to sexual immorality.


The Wheels Within Wheels . . .

  • Yah breathed into creation and expanded the initial singularity and started its expansion.
  • In the unimaginable size and amount of material in the creation, there is a specific galaxy set apart.
  • Within this galaxy, there is a solar system set apart.
  • Within the solar system (a billionth of a billionth) there is a specific planet uniquely balanced to support a whole biosystem like we experience now.
  • Within this biosystem, there is a set of hominids singled out from all the other animals
  • Yah breathed into this “Adamah” the neshamah  and Adamah became “Alive”
  • Within this species, eventually there emerges a specific group (nation) of them that become the focus of interaction with the Creator
  • Within this nation, there is a specific tribe (out of 12-13) that becomes the unique interactive group (Levites) for mediationa nd role modeling.
  • Within this specific tribe, there is a family that is the unique focus.
  • Within this family, there is a unique individual who typifies the responsibilities and activities.
  • Within the planet, there is a specific region (geographical) that is the focus.
  • Within this area, there is a specific location built to contain the interaction between the Creator and the Planet, through the special people.
  • Within this special location, there is multiple layers of exclusive interaction, eventually coming down to one human, in one unique spot, on one special day of the year.

The whole of scripture becomes focused on the Creator interacting with this part of a part of a part of the whole creation, primarily within the context of this special species filled with this special presence following patterns of ever more unique and individual elements.



Posted in Torah, Wandering Mind

Learning from the Mo’edim – Pesach 2017

I didnt realize I had skipped the last set of holidays. I dont write this stuff down much, I get distracted with work, life, other projects…

Last night we listened to the Exodus story. Having read or heard this gobs of times it is easy to check out. At the same time, both the kids and I find numerous things we are connecting in it from other parts of scripture. We are such humans, stumbling through it all.

One thing that caught my eye had nothing to do with the traditional story of the plagues and the deliverance. It was about Zipporah.

[Exo 2:21 NKJV] 21 Then Moses was content to live with the man, and he gave Zipporah his daughter to Moses.

This phrase or concept is so common in scripture, and something easily misunderstood. It appears here that Jethro made the judgement call and required Zipporah to marry Moses. Like an “arranged marriage”. There are a few things to consider:

  1. This isnt Israel. This is essentially Pre-Israel in that while Israel exists, and they are in covenant, they are in slavery in Egypt, and have not yet established their own culture and people.
  2. This is in Midian (Saudi Arabia today) and Moses is not a Midianite. In fact Moshe is more Egyptian than anything else, and the people are Midianites.
  3. Moses is alone. He isn’t with his family. He doesn’t have a father or kin to negotiate a marriage.
  4. Jethro is a priest in Midian, which had to have some status, if not significant status. He also had multiple daughters, possibly he was wealthy.

The main takeaway for me was even though this contest of “giving a daughter in marriage” is familiar, the setting isn’t. In most societies in the ANE, you don’t marry outside your people, let alone you extended family. And a stranger who comes with nothing, possibly on the run, isn’t your dream for your daughter.

Another piece of this is the phrase “give”.


This is the root of the term gave. It can mean a lot of varied and nuanced things. This particular word used in the passage is considered imperfect, which normally means uncompleted. But that can also have some application to an event in the past. Here is an explanation used at the BLB site

1a) It is used to describe a single (as opposed to a repeated) action in the past; it differs from the perfect in being more vivid and pictorial. The perfect expresses the “fact”, the imperfect adds color and movement by suggesting the “process” preliminary to its completion.

I dont know Hebrew well enough to tease out anything, but I find it odd it is imperfect, but completed.

Anyhow, the phrase and concept is that someone gave something to someone else. And we see this is scripture all the time with marriage. However what gets overlooked often is the idea of consent, especially for the woman. The phsae gets read over and it sounds like the woman is property which is traded and exchanged for compensation.

I would believe (because even now it is true, that this DOES occur) this is true within a wide range of degrees. And some of it is/was simply horrid.

But in stories such as Rebecca and Issac, Rebecca consented. She could have said no. Given her situation, her scheming family, and the wealthy dude showing up on behalf of some far away family member, she was probably smart in getting out of town. But it was her choice.

I have heard other commentators and people who study scripture and history make the case that it is IMPLIED that the woman always had consent. Certainly she could be pressured, or influenced. But there is no shred of idea presented tot he Israelite people, by their God, that woman are property, that they are to be exchanged for value, or that they have no say in the matter. Culturally there might be rules or norms, but nothing from Yah’s position seems to indicate otherwise.

Entering Marriage and Convenant is Voluntary

Not just marriage, but all covenant. Can you think of or bring any sample where a covenant is involuntary? Perhaps the Noahide Covenant could be. The world dint say “Yes Yahweh, I would like to be in a covenant where you wont destroy us again”. But in reality that isnt even the idea. Yah was making a promise not to do something.

I can think of no piece of information we have about Yah where anyone is forced into any situation like this. Invited, Encouraged, Facilitated, Paid For, Sustained… yep. But by every indication what Yah looks for is voluntary, trusting, heart-based engagement built on trust and confidence about Yah.

Revisit the idea of “gave”. It is also possible in this setting, Moses ASKED Jethro to marry Zipporah, and Jethro “gave his consent”.  It could mean as many combinations of permission, consent, and request between all 3 people as any other combination. And Jethro KNEW Moses wasnt “from ’round here” and could easily leave. Moses also had nothing, he was a runaway. Jewish tradition says he did all sorts of other things on his way to Midian, and was a great warrior and rich guy. Maybe. God didnt tell us that. We do see a guy without much confidence, broken, and not good in front of people.

We see later that Zipporah was “put away” by Moses. We dont know when or how or why. Maybe Moses didnt want her to get caught in all the trauma that was going to go down. Maybe she left at the “you are a bridegroom of blood to me” incident. We know Jethro brought her later after the Exodus and seems to have tried to reconcile them, or reunite them. We dont even know if it worked!

I guess my point is, it is so easy to read a phrase, assume an interpretation, and move on. Many women take serious objection to the idea of being treated this way. I dont blame them. They can read scripture and think that God creates cultures that treat women like property. That is a common understanding of the value of women in scripture. I think it is mistaken, mostly because a simple phrase assumes an awful lot of other things that could have happened, and we as modern readers fill in the blanks. We might even do that based on things we hear about or see that might be misplaced, or even grotesque and assume that is part of the backstory.

But the rest of the scripture doesnt support the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob that way. The humans on the planet might have practices and behaviors contrary to the nature of Yahweh! Shocking but true. As well, the lack of understanding of the culture and context of the author makes it hard. I just dont see how Yah wants to, encourages, or sets up systems where women are have no ability to consent or engage in covenant voluntarily. It doesn’t fit with the character or scripture.

Funny how I caught on to some weird idea not immediate to the holiday, but it happened.

Posted in Sabbath

Keeping Sabbath Idea Part 1

There are endless debates… whole books eve… about HOW to keep Sabbath. The battle for people who have come to some kind of conviction about the fact that keeping Sabbath Holy (set apart from the other days) is how to execute it.

From my perspective it seems to grow and change. It has for me over years, and even in the last few months I have felt a deeper heart desire to actually “keep” (really more guard or watch over) it. It seems as if I have been missing something even more profound and lacking. I can rest all day, I can nap and sleep. I can turn off my work resources… and I can try  to focus mentally away from work. I have been doing this for years. So the recent desire I have felt seem to be more attached to experiencing and connecting with what is behind or under the actions. More like the HEART of the Sabbath…

The main changes I have been through the last 8 years or so are:

  • I need to have Sabbath
  • In Torah, The Sabbath is Yehovah’s Sabbath, not mine. I am invited into it.
  • Sabbath isnt Sunday, it is the 7th day of the week i.e.  “Satur(n)day”. Scripture contextually understands a day to begin at sunset, not midnight.
  • There are other days oriented around Biblical Holidays that are ALSO a Sabbath, and some have slightly different instructions.
  • Work is forbidden
    • Work seems to be literally things I do to make income or supply our home with resource, not things that require effort.
  • Anyone else working on my behalf is forbidden.
    • Slaves, Servants, and Foreigners in Israel were required to forgoe work per Torah.
    • Others who dont keep Sabbath are not to work for me, nor am I to benefit from their labor.
  • The exchange of money is almost always associated with someones labor or income (i.e. “work”) so the best way for me to guard the holiness of Sabbath is to avoid buying and selling
  • Guarding the holiness of Yah’s Sabbaths seems to mean that in some way the day should be qualitatively different (i.e. Set-Apart) from other days.
    • Originally this meant indulgence for me. Like I have wine or beer and celebrate. Desserts and treats. Watching media and things that are special.
    • Lately, this has also meant more like taking the lack of obligation to work to have more time for things like learning Hebrew, reading scripture, listening to teaching etc…
    • No chores, homework or similar drudgery because this day is a break.

The last points have their own set of problems. With 3 little kids, we make food constantly. As soon as everyone is awake, we just keep putting food out for everyone. By the time the day is over, we have a pile of dishes in the sink, we are out of step with the daily maintenance of running the dishwasher or laundry etc… means EXTRA work after this “day of rest”. It is almost MORE of a hassle… and I just cannot believe this fits the idea or heart of Sabbath.

So we employed a few techniques… lets use (and compost!) paper plates and bowls during the Friday evening meal. Lets premake some things on Friday so we prepare as little as possible during the day. Lets run the dishwasher and clear all the clean dishes before dinner Friday so we don’t have to do it before “catching up” Saturday evening, Sunday morning. Lets set aside more time and focus Friday afternoon to make sure this is accomplished.

This has been harder to accomplish than I thought. But it has been worth the effort.

One piece that seemed to make a lot of sense was food prep. Traditionally the Jewish community ranges from barely observing Shabbat to not cooking, not turning on lights, and using electricity and cars etc…. It is very common however to see things come back down to food. Manna was given, and yet you couldn’t keep it overnight unless it was the day prior to Sabbath. It was a test in fact.. one the children of Israel couldn’t quite get for a good while. Eventually Moses tells them not to leave their “place”, which sometimes gets interpreted as house. However as Nehemia Gordon states, with no indoor plumbing and 3 million people there is no way people didn’t leave their tents during the day.

Ive tried to engage this more and more… can we get away from making food and reduce the intensity and obligation and more deeply fulfill the requirement. The common verse used is following:

hen he [Moses] said to them, “This is what the Lord meant: Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning.” So they put it aside until morning, as Moses had ordered, and it did not become foul, nor was there any worm in it. Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the sabbath, there will be none.” It came about on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions?” [Then Moses said to the people] “See, the Lord has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” Exodus 16:23-29

The phrase “Bake what you will Bake, Boil what you will Boil” which is used to apply to the idea about food prep. The general idea is “prep it all and get it all made so you dont have to do this on Shabbat”. And I like the idea, and love the heart of it. I make a lot of food, and it is something I enjoy. However, this would really make the whole day a lot more relaxing and more restful. However it has been harder to implement than I thought. I do agree it is a great idea, but until just now I had never seen what might be a very simple context/application of this.

“All that is left over put aside to be kept until morning”… Does this mean:

  • The things you MADE (like bread, manna tamales, mannaghetti etc…)
  • The manna itself

I just simply assumed it was the first example, and was steered into that idea by the traditions and practices of other folks. But the weird thing I didn’t realize; Manna spoiled when left over every night on other days, but it doesnt seem to say things MADE with manna spoiled. Ill have to do more research, but the test was collecting a bunch of manna in your house and saving it overnight. The fear you wouldn’t have enough for tomorrow, or someone else would get what you needed etc… drove people to not trust Yah and disobey. But Sabbath is totally different. Sabbath allows for keeping manna overnight, without spoiling.

If the manna can be left for 2 days means you would end up making something with manna the next day. Or at least you could if you wanted. If it is premade food that is the focus here, then you truly need to make at least 2 days food (probably more as Sat night would be a panic to make a bunch more food) by end of Friday night.

This would mean the process of making food isn’t the prohibition. And the fixation with it is coming from more bias than anything else. It could be a well intended, and heartfelt context, but missing the point. I want to reduce the activity and intensity of work on Sabbath, and make it different (set apart actually not just different). Premaking food and avoiding being under duress to make it on Sabbath is a great idea for me. But it possibly isnt one of the literal pillars of guarding the Sabbath in the first place.

Here is a great link to an article by Monte Judah that I think is a great read. We dont do a specific ritual, but we used to. I like the idea of developing things in your family to make this day special and set-apart. I also really love his simple idea… if this is a day Yah is inviting you into, how would you respond to that invitation, and how you would in turn make room, space and an environment to celebrate it with Yah?


Posted in Torah, Wandering Mind

Righteousness by Faith is the oldest (good) news

While I was writing this, I ended up separating a portion of this into another post, Dizzy Faith. I dont know why or how, but the Wandering Mind thing hit me….

Faith was designed into the Garden

Just as a parent parses out knowledge and information to a child, YHVH leads us by Wisdom, within the context of Relationship and Revelation. At least that is my take on it. The context for this is shown in an account from the Garden in Eden:

[Gen 3:8 NKJV] 8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Ive had a theory and interpretation of this for years, and it is more ind epth than I cn get into. But the basic idea in this application is that at a certain point of the day, perhaps regularly, YHVH walked around the garden wherein YHVH had placed Mankind. Both Adam and Havah were there. And YHVH called out to them.

This to me implies a lot of things, mostly relationship. There is a familiarity between mankind and YHVH. There is a connection, dialog. YHVH obviously know what is going on, so YHWH is in fact teaching mankind. I would even say shepherding, guiding towards a goal. Parenting comes to mind.

It is in this context that I began to think about faith. And many things in our life, parenting, teaching, correcting, leading etc… all work within the framework of the intedned party to have faith. Not just belief, but actual conviction working through action.

Parenting Children

Children often desire immediate remedy to whatever state they find themselves in. Especially when they perceive themselves to have a need or a lack. Many times they want information, or knowledge. It gives them a sense of stability, or even mastery of something that is currently keeping them in a sense of instability.

In some cases it is excitement:

Parent: “Guess where we are going tomorrow? It is going to be so fun!”

Child: “Where? Tell me!”

Parent: “Just trust me, you are going to LOVE IT!”

Child then pesters Parent incessantly.

In some cases, it is trust oriented

Child: “I need X (food, opportunity, object, help, support etc..)”

Parent: “Ill help you with that soon”

Child: “I need X NOW!!!”

Parent: “It is ok, don’t worry, Ill help you. You are actually fine, even though you don’t feel like it. Trust me, you are ok and Ill take care of it”

The temptation is to have immediate satisfaction of desire. The sign of immaturity is the inability to defer gratification. It is perfectly appropriate for a 2 or 3 year old to be “immature”. There are graduated steps of maturity and ability. We expect people to progress through stages and appropriate more ability to defer immediate gratification and resolution to unknowns.

There are many facets of this idea. From fear to excitement, to something new, or something boring. But Im beginning to see that a huge goal of parenting is to guide a child into an ability to trust us, and learn and develop themselves within that process so that they are successful in navigating the unknowns and emerging as authentic representations of their true selves. As they gain mastery and comprehension over themselves, and their interactions with others and the creation, they are able to DO what they BELIEVE.

Faith is Trust Matured

Faith is the ability to trust while the experience of the desire/need is not yet experienced. By faith Abraham was considered righteous.

Abraham was directed to offer his only son over to death. This was not unknown in Abrahams experience. People did this to their gods. YHVH had not given torah/instructions about forbidding child sacrifice. But at the point of this directive, Abraham believed that even if he did what Yahweh directed, the promise Yahweh had made about children and descendants would be accomplished by Yahwehs own power. All Abraham had to do was obey and let Yahweh deliver on Yahweh’s own promises. There was a level of confidence Abraham had that places his actions (not some ethereal mental concept) as the model for  everyone.

The Real Kinder(Garden)

Was YHVH always training creation in righteousness that comes from faith? Was the garden in Eden the perfect environment to walk mankind through a series of experiences, perhaps on a daily basis, to progressively teach them the nature and character of YHWH? If so, then was the alternative taking control ourselves of knowledge, information, or some other kind of resolution to a felt need, interest, stimulus or similar instinct? Is there an “appetite” (nephesh?) within mankind that can go beyond what is provided and seek out satisfaction some other way?

Was the eating from the knowledge tree the result of coveting information and understanding of how things work, and being able to avoid walking in daily dependence on relational based revelation? Was Havah encouraged to take control herself over the God ordained and God paced process of development and training in righteousness and have access to knowledge without having to be dependent on Yah?

It appears that way to me….

Climbing over the wall instead of using the gate

By eating of the Knowledge Tree, Havah and Adam circumvented the matrix which allowed YHVH to deliver knowledge via relationship (daily “walking” in the cool of the day?). They were introduced to an alternative (strange, foreign, secret, gnostic?) path. There was something awakened in them (before its time), and once awake, began to rule. They coveted knowledge, and wanted it for themselves. The crafty, shining, most naked one of all, the serpent (nechash) informed mankind that there was far more than what Yah was delivering. In fact, Yah was intentionally holding out on them. It wasn’t that Yah didn’t know certain things, it was that Yah knew FULL WELL and was refusing to share it. The serpent seemed to have first hand knowledge about this. The implication is, and we learn more about this later in scripture, that Yah had withheld these things from the serpent as well!

I know that classic christian thought is that this serpent was “Satan”, a personal and malevolent being, most probably a “fallen angel”. I have heard jewish perspectives that this was simply a snake, and this was just a snake being a snake. They talked with people, and it wasnt sin for a snake to desire these things, but it was wrong for mankind.

I tend to think it was a unique spiritual being, who was the embodiment of what the term “Satan” is, an adversary. There are many “satans”, from actual personal beings to worldwide evil anti Yah mindsets and agendas. Apparently in Israel, prosecuting attorneys are actually called “Satans”.

Regardless of the context one might have for the “satan”, it is the action of mankind that resulted in its own problem. It may have been encouraged, or catalyzed, but it was the action, not the thought, that was the downfall.

It was the DOING of the eating or the fruit from the Knowledge Tree that was wrong. Whatever the motives. But the motives themselves are easily understood as lack of Faith (conviction, belief, assurance, trust) in the words Yah gave.

The Results

Adam had to return back to where Adam came from (the dirt outside the Garden). The pattern then repeats itself with the Hebrew children. They had to wander the desert (the dirt) and learn how to walk in dependence on Yahwehs provision. Every time they desired to take things into their own hands, the consequences were essentially death. Either by their enemies, Elohim’s judgements, or by the loss of valuable property in sacrifices.

The result of the covetous action of eating from the knowledge tree resulted in death. And now with more knowledge than YAH parsed out at any given time, mankind had awareness of possibilities and options that bring fear, anxiety or apprehension. The desire to appease the initial response can become so great that humans take actions about options or possibilities without WISDOM directing the flow, quality, and truth of the scenario. By acting outside of, or parallel to, YHWH they act outside of covenant relationship. They use their strength, mind, might, in reality their SELF to LOVE THEMSELVES.

As well, people see opportunities for their desires without understanding the broader impact to anyone or anything else. By taking action on these desires without the guidance of WISDOM, they end up with results at someone or something else’s expense. They essentially forgo LOVING THEIR NEIGHBOR.

This all stems from their lack of Loving YHVH with all their might, soul, strength, mind etc… Loving Yahweh is defined as obeying Yahweh’s commands. It isnt thinking right, it is DOING them. In fact, study the idea of Guarding (Shamar). We are told to guard the commands of Yah. Mankind was told to guard the garden. Learning from Yah, and then guarding what Yah said.

Faith in the Garden

If the thesis is in the right direction, then YHVH was sustaining mankind while teaching them the way things work, how to trust, how to be righteous. As they learned, they were to guard what was told them. Watch over it. tend to it, keep it, treasure etc… Not just the command itself, but the actual outworking of it. For instance, Im not supposed to shamar a Torah Scroll. Im supposed to shamar the instructions of it. it is not a conceptual idea, but a reality.

By circumventing this trust and response to Yahweh, death came. More on that later. A lack of Life is the result of not DOING the instructions.

Posted in Creation, Torah, Wandering Mind

The Tree of Life was always good eating

There is no indication that Adam (mankind) was not eating of the Life Tree. Perhaps daily during the “cool of the day”? Both Adam and Havah were permitted to eat of ANY tree in the garden except for the Knowledge Tree. If there was 2 main trees in the middle of the garden (does it say that?), one you could eat and one you couldn’t, how is it possible that they didn’t eat of it? If YHVH drew attention to them both over and above any others (at least that is what we read in scripture) I would certainly go check them out.

Yah says “in the day you eat of the Knowledge Tree you will die”, but they don’t actually die. I have heard people teach all around this. Is there another method of death? In a fantastic podcast, Mirimam Brand discusses how the Masoretes attempted to reconcile things and added some punctuation in this passage. The snake uses a classic “forked tongue” in saying “Undying one you will die“. The word “death“, (muwth) is simply repeated here, but in context clearly the serpent is attempting to get Havah (and therefore mankind) to eat this.

Is there also a concept that “Existing you are not Alive”?

Created for Death?

There are numerous animals and processes created in creation that have either a direct or indirect role in dealing with death, dead things, or in some way recycling. Predators, as well as scavengers exists and we believe Yahweh created everything. Perhaps predators are/were a distortion of the original creation, but the massive amount of microbiological, insects, small animals, birds and other living creatures cannot be accidental. Everything from a micro level to a macro in creation has a clear and inherent structure for recycling and conversion of matter and energy.

Is it possible death itself is designed into creation? That death in original context is the ending of the purely physical, whereas the death talked about in the Garden is talking about the disconnection from Yah?

Living Soul vs Existing Soul

We see in the creation story that Elohim breathed into Adamah the “neshamah“, and then “Adam” (which is all mankind) became a LIVING SOUL. All the previous animals appear to already have a soul (nephesh). But Adam experienced a totally different and unique (to the creation account so far) element. Now mankind (Adamah) was alive, whereas before, the status was different.

So if this “neshamah” is the difference, and Adam was already existing prior to the infusion of “the neshamah”, existence is not the same thing as “being alive”. Animals were existing, some possibly human like in form and function. But once Yah breathed the neshamah into a specific one, the bible begins the story and a separation occurs.

Regardless of the path creation took, the Life Tree could possibly be the element that would sustain that “Living Soul” breath. The breath was a spark, the fruit was the sustaining resource. One was the start, the other was the maintenance. One was involuntary, the other was the voluntary responsibility of mankind.

Would we then would say death is the removal or absence of the “neshamah”? Is it a return to the appetite driven, instinctual existence that animals have? When you combine that existence with the toolset and unique characteristics of humankind, you have a dominant species that will consume everything else including each other.

Life Tree

It is only after eating the Knowledge Tree fruit, that Elohim decides that Adam and Havah cannot be allowed to eat from the Life Tree. In fact, the Creator puts guards (watchers?) at the gates to the garden to ensure mankind is unable to access the Life Tree. Why? Yah says this stops Adam from coming into the garden and eating from it and existing in a state of being “like us” permanently. This doesn’t mean mankind would simply eat of it one time. There is no indication of this previously. Perhaps it was the accessibility to the Life Tree that would maintain mankind, and they would be stuck in some kind of negative consequence.

And this might actually be the death Yahweh is speaking about.

Is there simply a regenerative or restorative context to the Life Tree? Was eating Life fruit it a regular event, or a periodic event in response to specific actions?

If there is a regenerative process of the Life Tree it would totally make sense that death itself would result from not having access to the Life Tree. If mankind was allowed to eat from the Life Tree, was it the Life Tree that was keeping mankind alive forever?

  • If the context for eating Life Fruit was daily, then this lends itself to the idea of “Daily Bread”, Manna, and other concepts later developed within scripture as a Wheel within a Wheel.
  • If the context is Yah leading Adam (all mankind here) to the Tree of Life when they have “missed the mark”, it sets the stage for the idea of repentance.

If the neshamah and the Life Tree are connected, then another idea could be that progressively the living part of mankind is eroding. The ability to be regenerated is removed, and entropy increases. Disorder increases. Sin increases. The consequences of sin increase. Mankind stops being a living soul, and reverts back to simply existing, driven by instinct and desire, and unaware of the transcendent God relationship.

We do see this as the story unfolds. All the way to the account of Noah, mankind progressively lives shorter and shorter, and awful things become the norm. Yah states that it is no longer going to work, and mankind (and all living land animals and birds) will be wiped out.

Access Restored

Later in the prophecies we see that the leaves of the Life Tree provide healing for the Nations… the peoples, MANKIND. Access to the Life Tree is conditional to being allowed access into the restored reality spoken about in the Prophets. In the Apostolic writings we see the Life Tree in the middle of the “New Jerusalem”, and access is via 1 of 12 gates around the city.

Is it possible that the guardians of the gates are removed, and the access to the Life Tree is once again the sustaining force, even for the resurrected bodies talked about in the Prophets?

Tree of Life in Messiah

Messiah Yeshua talks about eating “from” or “of” Him. It is a symbol, but in context, the Tree of Life becomes many different expressions and symbols all resolving into Yah’s provision for healing, salvation from death, and restoration to YHVH.

Posted in Wandering Mind

Dizzy Faith

For most people like me who were involved in christianity, there was a massive emphasis on faith. Debates about it, denominations and movements about it. Definitions of it and how to use it. On and On… In fact, it is proposed that faith is the difference between Jesus and the Torah, or Old and New, or jewish and christian. It goes so far that christians actually are led to believe by doctrine that they alone are the actual possessors of this “saving faith”.

For others, mainly people who even study the scriptures themselves, righteousness by faith was clearly predating the “New Testament”. It comes as a revelation to many that Paul himself quotes Genesis and says “Abraham believed God, and it was accredited to him as righteousness”. Different translations word it slightly differently, but the gist is Abraham believed God, and was considered righteous by that belief.

Basic christian concepts equate being declared righteous as the same thing Yah does in “saving” people. Righteousness is “imputed” to them fulfilling some kind of requirements for their status to change.

Faith is not ethereal

Faith in the context of Abraham is really evidenced by his actions rather than some internal thought or commitment. Actions demonstrate belief. Another classic verse used is “The righteous shall live by faith”. Sometimes it is “the just”, or justified. Regardless of the actual context of this verse, the piece of it quoted here is used even in the apostolic scriptures by Paul/Shaul as evidence that within the good news of the Kingdom itself, righteousness is revealed as being by faith. In the Apostolic writings, James slams this home with the famous “Faith without works is dead” statement. The evidence of faith is action. Abraham demonstrated his confidence in Yah by DOING.

Faith and works are inseparable. The works of a person, or their actions, reveal where they are at.

James also states a very interesting concept, yet does this in a very weird way. To me, this drives home the idea of what we do as the reality of righteouness vs simply something we say or believe

James 2:19 (NKJV) 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe–and tremble!

Think through this a bit….

  • You believe there is one God: Either this is simply basic monotheism, or something more. I suspect it is a reference tot he fundamental tenet of Israel which is the Shema, the greatest commandment. It is the declaration that YHVH is ONE, and that you should Love YHVH with all your heart, soul, mind etc…
  • You do well: This is a good thing. In fact Yeshua confirms this is the GREATEST COMMANDMENT.
  • Even the demons believe this… The things Yeshua casts out of people. The supernatural beings who live in essentially rebellion to the Kingdom of YHVH. By doing well, following the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, you are at the same level as demons.
  • And Tremble: This is the only time (in the greek version of the NT) the word is used. The word seems to mean being scared like when your hair stand on end.
    • Looking up the Greek word in the Septuagint tells us what translators used the Greek word for a Hebrew word (click here). The Septuagint uses the word twice, Jer 2:12, and Daniel 7:15 which is an Aramaic word.
    • The Hebrew word means to be very afraid, and also a whirlwind. I would say this is like when you are scared and possibly disoriented or even dizzy.

Why does this make them afraid to the point of their proverbial hair standing up on end? Because they are unable to do anything abut it. They “believe it” in their “mind”. They even know it to be true. And their lack of repentance, their inability to respond with the appropriate action renders them unable to resolve the problem. YHVH is ONE. Mighty, certainly. But there is NO OTHER MIGHTY ONE. Any variant of ONE you try to use (quantity, quality, unity etc…) results in a sinking, foreboding feeling to a demon. I believe that is because they simply will not, or cannot respond in repentance to this reality. They cannot put action to their belief. In this case, they cannot back up their faith with anything meaningful enough to reconcile the issue.


The next series of verses, and the supporting context of the whole concept follows

[Jas 2:20-23 NKJV] 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.

So essentially, my take is:

You state that you believe in the fundamental and greatest commandment of the scriptures, the Shema. And this is great. It puts you on the same level as the demons. They agree with you on this, and are scared out of their wits about it because they cannot produce any works consistent with this.

Should you be concerned?

Posted in Biblical Calendar, Torah

Learning from the Mo’edim – Shavuot 2016

This post builds on the basic assumptions listed in Learning from the Mo’edim

Shavuot 2016

I dont post very much as Im so busy and honestly dont have energy and focus to sit down and write stuff out. I just happened to go back through some posts, noticed gobs of spelling errors and was correcting them, and read through last years Learning from the Mo’edim. It reminded me that I hadn’t written down things from this years Pesach or Shavuot.

I cannot recall much of Pesach. I don’t know why! I believe we had a family come over, eat some food and discuss the holiday. And we read through the Exodus together and discussed it. We have an age range of 4 to 8, and lots of interesting questions. I am always reminded of how much deeper I need to dig into these things and prepare.

Shavuot is a whole other challenge for me. 2016 had a bunch of discussions and differing opinions about timing of Pesach. Pesach (Passover) begins the calendar. There are so many ways different folks work around the start of the new year. I see the idea of barley being mature in the field as the indicator that the new year is able to start as the most simple and direct way presented in scripture so far. This is key as it starts the chain of events and dates that set the rest of the year timetable for holidays.

Once we hit Shavuot, I realized that I had made a serious mistake. We had planned a family trip to Alaska. We had to plan this way in advance, and I didnt realize that an appointed time occurred right in the middle of it. This isnt necessarily a problem.  I dont see where Shavuot is a Sabbath, but I might be confused or missing something. But by being on a trip, away from home, with my wonderful extended family who dont remotely care about this stuff threw me off. Combined with the last minute realization of it, I simply didnt give it the attention it deserved.

However, some interesting and redemptive things have occurred. Prior to the holiday, I began to really think about the classic role and reference to “the/The spirit/Spirit”. All the combinations. My background in christian culture, especially charismatic expression has resulted in a whole bunch of presuppositions and biases. There is a whole bunch of things Im unlearning, and it turns out this whole concept is under serious revision.

Oddly, I have come across lots of teaching resources about this very topic. I didnt go searching for it but I came across these resources seemingly accidentally. This has been encouraging that perhaps Im getting divinely guided.

The main ideas that seem to be working themselves out:

  1. The concept of Pentecost in christian context is related to the “giving” of “The Spirit”. This really seems to be plain wrong. There are plenty of references to the spirit of Yah being present from the creation forward. There is nothing new about the working of the Spirit of Yah in human history. What seems to be the new part is the idea of being IMMERSED, or BAPTIZED in the Spirit. I interpret this (so far in my limited understanding) as a quantitative idea. There is an intensification of the work and activity.
  2. The nature and identity of The Spirit is really changing in my mind. The best concept I have heard that seems to connect the dots of scripture for me is an interesting one. The idea of a distilled essence of something. It flies in the face of the classic trinitarian interpretation. The Spirit not being a “person” as much as the deep, distilled essence of Yehovah. This also resonates with a previous mental wrestling match.
  3. Yeshua now seems to embody the Spirit with skin. It is more and more to me that Yeshua IS the Salvation of Yahweh. The Strong Right Arm. And the practical mechanics to me is a picture of the distilled essence of Yah ut into a body with skin. Even the literal teaching of Yeshua brings the distilled essence of Torah to reality. The Sermon on the Mount, where Yeshua talks about the idea of not just murdering someone, but not hating them. The revealing of the distilled essence of the commandments comes out of the mouth of Yeshua, and Yeshua expects disciples who choose to submit to this same Spirit.

Im still in the weeds with these ideas. It is always a trap to listen to someone teach something, and then run with it. Im looking to take the ideas presented and then study and prove it with scripture. The next step is how to practically respond and adapt to the idea. What is Yah expecting of me? How do I agree with this and engage it?