FATHER OF LIES (DEUT.25)
Now suppose two of you accuse each other of doing something wrong, and you go to court, where the judges decides you are guilty. If your punishment is to be beaten with a whip, one of the judges will order you to lie down, and you will receive the number of lashes you deserve. Forty lashes is the most that you can be given, because more than that might make other Yisharalites think you’re worthless. THE IDEA OF A GOOD FLOGGING SHOULD BE FRESH IN OUR MINDS SINCE WE JUST RECENTLY DISCUSSED YAHUSHA’S PROCESS OF DISCIPLINE WITHIN HIS BRIDE.
THE FIRST DIVINE LAW IS ABOUT THE ADMINISTERING OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT UPON A CRIMINAL AND THE VEHICLE OF PUNISHMENT IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED `FLOGGING'. THE IDEA IS THAT TWO MEN HAVE A LEGAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THEM AND SO THEY GO TO THE YISHARALITE LAW SYSTEM FOR IT TO BE JUDGED. THIS MEANS THAT A FORMAL COURT (AT LEAST FORMAL FOR THAT ERA) IS CONVENED; A MAGISTRATE HEARS THE CASE AND RENDERS A DECISION THAT BY DEFINITION WILL BE “FOR” ONE OF THE LITIGANTS AND “AGAINST” THE OTHER. THE ONE THAT IS JUDGED TO HAVE BEEN IN THE WRONG WILL BE FLOGGED. THE CASE PRESENTED HERE IS VERY GENERAL IN NATURE AND SO NO SPECIFIC CRIME IS EVEN STATED.
FIRST WE NEED TO SEE THAT FLOGGING WAS NOT THE PENALTY THAT EVERY PERSON FOUND GUILTY OF SOMETHING SUFFERED. WE HAVE STACKS OF DIVINE LAWS WHERE THE PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATION IS NOT SPECIFIED, THEREFORE THE PENALTY WAS OFTEN LEFT IN THE HANDS OF THE COURT TO DECIDE, AND YAHUSHA WAS SATISFIED WITH THIS BECAUSE HE HAD ESTABLISHED GENERAL GUIDELINES INVOLVING PUNISHMENT. AFTER ALL, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT OR ADDRESS EVERY POSSIBLE VIOLATION INDIVIDUALLY.
WE ARE GIVEN ONE EXPLICIT CASE IN THE LAW WHEREBY A PERSON MUST BE FLOGGED: IT WAS WHEN A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN AND THEN FALSELY ACCUSED HER OF HAVING NOT BEEN A VIRGIN AT THE TIME OF THEIR BETROTHAL AND THEN MARITAL CONSUMMATION. THE MAN WAS TO BE TAKEN TO THE CITY GATES AND WHIPPED FOR THIS HUMILIATION OF HIS WIFE AND ASSAULT ON HIS FATHER-IN-LAW’S FAMILY HONOR.
AS STATED ABOVE, THE NUMBER OF LASHES IS TO BE PROPORTIONATE WITH THE GRAVITY OF THE CRIME AND THIS PRINCIPLE IS ITSELF ANOTHER OF THOSE GENERAL PRINCIPLES YAHUSHA PRONOUNCED, REGARDING PUNISHMENT AND RETRIBUTION THAT IS SUMMED UP IN THE “EYE-FOR-AN-EYE” LAW THAT SCHOLARS CALL LEX TALIONIS.
WE’RE THEN TOLD THAT THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF LASHES THAT CAN BE ADMINISTERED IS 40; AND THAT THE REASON FOR THIS IS SO THAT THE CRIMINAL (A YISHARALITE BROTHER) WILL NOT BE HUMILIATED OR (IN SOME VERSIONS) DEGRADED. WHY 40 LASHES AND NOT 30, OR 45, OR 50? WE’RE NOT TOLD; AND THERE IS MUCH SPECULATION AS TO WHY THIS NUMBER WAS CHOSEN BY MOSES. IT PROBABLY HAD TO DO WITH IT BEING A LESS SEVERE AMOUNT THAT WAS TYPICALLY PRESCRIBED BY THE PAGAN SOCIETIES OF THE MIDDLE EAST IN THAT ERA. ANCIENT RECORDS SHOW THAT MOST MESOPOTAMIAN CULTURES SPECIFIED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF LASHES TO BE 100.
AS WE’VE STUDIED THE DIVINE LAWS GIVEN TO MOSES WE’VE SEEN MANY LAWS, THAT ON THE SURFACE SEEM STRANGE AS TO WHY THEY EVEN EXISTED OR WHAT LOGICAL PURPOSE THEY COULD HAVE SERVED. IN REALITY MANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LAW ARE ABOUT SOME CANAANITE PRACTICE OR RITUAL THAT YAHUSHA DESPISES AND DOES NOT WANT THE YISHARALITES TO MIMIC; SO HE TAKES THAT RITUAL OR PRACTICE OF THE CANAANITES AND SIMPLY MAKES A DIVINE LAW AGAINST IT. ONE SUCH EXAMPLE IS THE PROHIBITION AGAINST BOILING A KID IN ITS MOTHER’S MILK.
HERE THE DECISION IS THAT IT WOULD BE INHUMANE FOR A MAN TO SUFFER MORE THAN 40 LASHES. THE REASON GIVEN ABOUT IT BEING HUMILIATING OR DEGRADING, THOUGH, DOES NOT MEAN THAT BEING FLOGGED IS OF ITSELF DEGRADING OR INHUMANE. FROM A PHYSICAL STANDPOINT THE IDEA IS ON THE ONE HAND TOO MANY STROKES OF THE WHIP COULD CAUSE DEATH, OR ON OTHER HAND IT COULD CAUSE A MAN TO CRY AND BEG FOR MERCY, OR TO BREAK DOWN AND SOIL HIMSELF, OR SOME OTHER UNBECOMING REACTION THAT IS DEHUMANISING. ANY OF THESE THINGS WOULD BRING GREAT DISHONOR UPON HIM THAT WOULD LAST MUCH LONGER THAN ANY REMEMBRANCE OF THE CRIME AND ITS PAINFUL PENALTY. A PERSON WHO IS PUNISHED TOO MUCH OR UNREASONABLY DOESN’T GAIN BY SEEING THEIR WRONGNESS; RATHER THEY BECOME CYNICAL AND EMBITTERED. UNFORTUNATELY THIS VARYING DEGREE OF INHUMANE SEVERITY AND LENIENCY IN OUR HUMANISTIC JUSTICE SYSTEM TODAY IS WHY WE SEE A LACK OF REHABILITATION AND AN INCREASE IN HATRED AND VIOLENCE FOR THE SYSTEM.
NATURALLY THIS EXACT PRINCIPLE IS REPEATED IN LATTER WRITINGS: "Fathers don't irriate your children and make them resent you. Instead raise them with Yahusha's kind of discipline and guidance". EPH 6 BRS
THIS DIVINE LAW ABOUT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF LASHES TO 40 IS ONE OF THE SEVERAL ELEMENTS THAT GO INTO DEFINING WHAT “YAHUSHA’S KIND OF DISCIPLINE AND GUIDANCE” IS.
FROM A SPIRITUAL STANDPOINT, HOWEVER, WE MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE DIVINE MEANING OF “40” AND THE PATTERN IT PRESENTS. FORTY IS INDICATIVE OF A TIME OF TRIAL AND/OR PREPARATION. YAHUSHA WAS 40 DAYS IN THE WILDERNESS. THE GREAT FLOOD INVOLVED 40 DAYS AND NIGHTS OF RAIN. MOSES WENT UP TO THE SUMMIT OF MT. SINAI AND WAS SEPARATED FROM HIS PEOPLE FOR 40 DAYS WHILE HE LEARNED YAHUSHA’S INSTRUCTIONS, BUT THE PEOPLE LOST HOPE AND TURNED TO IDOLATRY IN THE ABSENCE OF THEIR MEDIATOR, MOSES. JONAH WARNED THE PEOPLE OF NINEVAH THAT THEY HAD 40 DAYS TO REPENT AND RECEIVE DELIVERANCE, OR TO NOT REPENT AND FACE DESTRUCTION. THEY DID REPENT WITHIN THE ALLOTTED 40 DAYS SO YAHUSHA DID NOT DESTROY THEM.
NOTICE THAT WITHIN THIS PATTERN OF YAHUSHA IS THAT WHEN THE 40 DAYS OF TRIAL OR PREPARATION ENDS, YAHUSHA PROVIDES DELIVERANCE OF THE OBEDIENT (OR POTENTIALLY OBEDIENT) AS OPPOSED TO FINAL JUDGMENT. AFTER 40, HOPE AND BELIEF STILL REMAINS; UTTER, COMPLETE AND FINAL DESTRUCTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE YAHUSHA’S IS STOPPED SHORT AND INSTEAD THERE IS DELIVERANCE OR REDEMPTION FROM THE TROUBLE. THUS FROM A SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVE THE URGENT INSTRUCTION OF THIS LAW TO NOT EXCEED 40 LASHES IS BECAUSE THIS IS A TRIAL FOR THE CRIMINAL THAT IS MEANT NOT ONLY TO PUNISH BUT TO CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR. IT IS NOT MEANT TO KILL HIM, IT IS NOT MEANT TO BRING HIM TO DESTRUCTION.
Don’t muzzle an ox while it’s threshing grain.
WHILE WE CAN LOOK AT THIS REGULATION AND SAY TO OURSELVES THAT THIS SEEMS LOGICAL AND THE HUMANE AND A KIND THING TO DO FOR THE ANIMAL, IN FACT THE LOGIC WOULD HAVE SEEMED ODD AND EVEN COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO ANYONE OF THE SCRIPTURAL ERA. IN FACT IF ONE EVER HOPED TO FINISH THE THRESHING FUNCTION IN A TIMELY MANNER THE OX HAD TO BE MUZZLED AND/OR WHIPPED AND GOADED AS WELL.
THE THRESHING PROCESS WAS THAT AN OX (THOUGH IT COULD BE OTHER ANIMALS AS WELL) EITHER TRAMPLED ON THE STALKS OF GRAIN WITH THEIR HOOVES OR THEY PULLED A KIND OF SLED OR THRESHING SKID OVER THE TOP OF THE GRAIN STALKS THUS CAUSING THE RIPENED KERNELS TO SEPARATE FROM THE HEADS. AS OXEN ARE GRAZERS IT IS THEIR NATURE TO BEND THEIR NECK DOWN AND EAT CONSTANTLY DURING THE THRESHING PROCESS. THIS INSTRUCTION STATES THAT DESPITE THE NEED FOR PRODUCTIVITY THE OX IS NOT TO BE MUZZLED BUT ALLOWED TO GRAZE AND EAT DURING THE PROCESS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW THIS MEANT THAT TO KEEP THE ANIMAL MOVING IT HAD TO BE CONSTANTLY WHIPPED OR GOADED.
THEREFORE IT BECAME THE NORM OF THE HEBREWS TO MUZZLE THE ANIMAL AND THEN OCCASIONALLY REMOVE THE MUZZLE FOR IT TO EAT SO THAT 1) THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW OF DEUTERONOMY 25 COULD BE MAINTAINED AND 2) SO THAT THE ANIMAL DID NOT HAVE TO BE WHIPPED IN ORDER TO KEEP IT MOVING IF IT WERE NOT MUZZLED AND THUS BREAK THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMANE TREATMENT OF BEASTS. THIS PRINCIPLE OF NOT MUZZLING AN OX WHILE HE IS WORKING IS BROUGHT FORWARD TOO IN AN INTERESTING CONTEXT.
IN 1 COR. 9 PAUL DIRECTLY QUOTES DEUTERONOMY 25 IN HIS RESPONSE TO A PRESSING ISSUE: SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWERS WHO TRAVEL TO VARIOUS ASSEMBLIES TO TEACH THE GOOD NEWS (BESORAH) THAT YAHUSHA IS ALIVE, AND THAT OUR EVIL LAWLESS BEHAVIOUR CAN BE FORGIVEN. SO THE PRACTICE IS THAT WHETHER MAN OR ANIMAL, ANY LIVING CREATURE THAT WORKS AND IS PRODUCTIVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE FRUITS OF HIS LABOR.
THIS IS ONE OF THE TEXTS USED BY RELIGION TO STATE WHY A PREACHER/TEACHER/PASTOR/RABBI SHOULD BE PAID FOR THEIR WORK BECAUSE THEY’VE EARNED IT AND AS WE SEE TODAY, STACKS OF THEM HAVE BUILT EXTRAVAGANT LIFESTYLES FROM THIS. HOWEVER (AS THE BRIDE KNOWS ALREADY) THESE OFFICES AND ROLES ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED IN THE 21st CENTURY WHERE YAHUSHA TRAINS HIS BRIDE PERSONALLY AND INDIVIDUALLY. SO IF SOMEONE FEELS CALLED, INSPIRED AND ANNOINTED TO DO A CERTAIN BODY OF WORK, THEY SHOULD FIT IT INTO THEIR DAILY SCHEDULE AND KEEP WORKING THEIR JOB TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES. THERE IS ALWAYS ENOUGH HOURS IN THE DAY IF WE ARE WISE WITH OUR TIME.
IF A PERSON WAS CALLED TO FULL-TIME SERVICE TO TEACH (NO LONGER NECESSARY IN THE BRIDE TODAY), THEN DURING THAT TIME THE ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE SURE THAT HIS REASONABLE NEEDS WERE GENERALLY MET. MOST, LIKE PAUL, FELL SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN; HIS OCCUPATION BROUGHT HIM SOME OF THE NEEDED INCOME BUT WHEN HE LEFT THAT (OFTEN FOR MONTHS AT A TIME) TO TRAVEL AND TEACH THEN HE NEEDED SUPPORT TO MAKE UP FOR IT. BUT THAT WAS THEN, 2000 YEARS AGO AT THE BIRTH OF THE MOVEMENT, A TIME WITHOUT THE INTERNET, CARS OR PLANES WITH WHICH TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD IN MERE HOURS (OR AT THE PUSH OF A BUTTON). TODAY IS VERY DIFFERENT AND YAHUSHA’S BRIDE IS NO LONGER NEEDED IN SUCH A CAPACITY. THE CALLING IS PERSONAL, FAMILY, COMMUNITY-BASED OR THROUGH ONLINE CONNECTIONS, AND NO ONE IN A GENUINE, SERIOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH YAHUSHA WOULD ATTEMPT TO MILK THE FUNDS OR RESOURCES FROM HIS BODY OF BELIEVERS TO SUIT THEMSELVES AND A DESIRE TO NOT HAVE TO WORK WOULD THEY?
Suppose two brothers are living on the same property and one of them dies without having a son to carry on his name. If this happens, his widow must not marry anyone outside the family. Instead, she must marry her late husband’s brother, and their first son will be the legal son of the dead man. But suppose the brother refuses to marry the widow. She must go to a meeting of the town leaders at the town gate and say, “My husband died without having a son to carry on his name, and my husband’s brother refuses to marry me so I can have a son.”
The leaders will call the living brother to the town gate and try to persuade him to marry the widow. But if he doesn’t change his mind and marry her, she must go over to him while the town leaders watch. She will pull off one of his sandals and spit on the ground in front of him, saying, “That’s what happens to a dead-beat man who won’t help provide descendants for his dead brother and continue his life.” From then on, the reputation of that man and his family will be known as 'the family of the man whose sandal was removed (OR THE UNSANDALED ONE).'
EVEN THOUGH THE TERM `LEVIRATE MARRIAGE' IS NOT FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES, THINK BACK TO WHAT WE’VE LEARNT ABOUT THE SUPERSTITION AND IGNORANCE REGARDING THE AFTERLIFE FOUND IN THIS ERA. ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB (AND EVEN JOSEPH) ALL SPOKE ABOUT WHERE THEY WANTED TO BE BURIED (THINKING IT AFFECTED WHAT HAPPENED NEXT IN THE AFTERLIFE). WE KNOW ABOUT A MAN’S LIFE ESSENCE AND HOW IT WAS SUPPOSABLY CARRIED ON AFTER DEATH THROUGH ONES CHILDREN. ALSO THE STORY OF JUDAH’S SON ONAN BEING CALLED TO MARRY HIS DEAD BROTHER’S WIFE TAMAR. NOTICE THAT INDEED ONAN DID MARRY TAMAR, BUT IT WAS BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO GIVE HER A SON, THAT YAHUSHA FOUND HIM GUILTY. JUDAH DID NOT WANT HIS YOUNGEST SON TO MARRY TAMAR BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY LOST TWO SONS, BOTH WHO HAD MARRIED THIS WOMAN AND DIED; SO HE REFUSED TO ALLOW THE MARRIAGE. TAMAR EVENTUALLY TRICKED JUDAH INTO THINKING SHE WAS A COMMON PROSTITUTE; BECAME PREGNANT BY HIM AND PRODUCED NOT ONE SON BUT TWINS (ONE OF WHOM WENT ON TO BECOME YAHUSHA’S ANCESTOR).
NOW THE REASON TAMAR DID THIS WAS NOT SELFISH AS IT MIGHT SEEM (AND HAS OFTEN BEEN TAUGHT AS A SELFISH ACT). IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE OF THAT ERA THAT THE WOMAN HELD THE KEY TO THE AFTERLIFE OF HER HUSBAND. IF SHE DIDN’T PRODUCE CHILDREN, HIS AFTERLIFE ENDED. THEREFORE TAMAR WENT TO GREAT LENGTH TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS LIKELY DISGUSTING TO HER (ACTING AS A PROSTITUTE TO SEDUCE HER FATHER-IN-LAW) IN ORDER TO FULFILL HER DUTY TO BIRTH A SON IN HER DEAD HUSBAND’S NAME, THUS ASSURING THE ONGOING LIFE OF HIS SPIRIT. AND THIS IS ALSO WHY YAHUSHA KILLED ONAN (AMONG OTHER REASONS) BECAUSE ONAN DID AN EVIL THING (AS IT TURNS OUT) BY REFUSING TO IMPREGNATE TAMAR. UNDERSTAND: ONAN FULLY UNDERSTOOD THAT BY NOT FULFILLING HIS DUTY, HIS BROTHER’S LIFE ESSENCE WOULD CEASE. THUS IN A SPIRITUAL SENSE ONAN DIDN'T EVEN CARE IF HE KILLED THE VITAL PART OF HIS BROTHER, HIS SPIRIT. THEREFORE YAHUSHA KILLED ONAN FOR REFUSING TO DO HIS DUTY TO AVERT SUCH A TERRIBLE THING . . . (PLUS HE WAS A WANKER).
NOW FAST-FORWARD A FEW CENTURIES (TO LONG AFTER THE TIME THAT THE DIVINE LAW OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WAS GIVEN TO MOSES) TO THE TIME OF RUTH. A MAN (RUTH’S HUSBAND) DIED WHO HAD NO LIVING BROTHERS AND SO IT FELL TO MORE DISTANT RELATIVES TO MARRY RUTH AND GIVE HER A SON. THAT MAN WAS BOAZ. IT IS TRUE THAT THE STORY OF RUTH ALSO INVOLVES THE LAW OF THE KINSMAN REDEEMER BUT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE RULES ARE ALSO PRESENT AND CENTRAL TO THE STORY. SO WE SEE HOW OVER THE CENTURIES THE DIVINE LAWS OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WERE PRACTICED IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF YISHARAL’S HISTORY.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THE DECEASED MAN’S BROTHER DOES NOT WANT TO MARRY THE WIDOW? WE FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IN DEUTERONOMY 25. AND IT IS THAT THE WIDOW BRINGS THE UNREASONABLE BROTHER TO THE CITY GATES (WHERE THE ELDERS WHO ARE USUALLY THE TOWN’S JUDGES HANDLE THE LEGAL MATTERS) AND SHE DECLARES THAT THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY REFUSES TO DO HIS DUTY. THE ELDERS OF THE TOWN ASK HIM IF THAT IS THE CASE AND IF HE CONFIRMS IT THEN SHE WALKS UP TO HIM, PULLS THE SANDAL OFF OF ONE HIS FEET, AND THEN SPITS. SHE ALSO MAKES WHAT AMOUNTS TO A CURSE UPON THE BROTHER THAT WHAT HE HAS DONE TO HIS BROTHER SHOULD HAPPEN TO HIM, AND THAT HE SHALL BE KNOWN FOREVER AS THE “UNSANDALED ONE”…..A VERY ODD-SOUNDING PHRASE, DON’T YOU THINK?
THIS IS INTERESTING ENOUGH TO SPEND A MOMENT EXPLAINING THE SANDAL REMOVING RITUAL. LET ME BEGIN BY REMINDING YOU THAT SEXUALITY WAS FRONT AND CENTER IN ANCIENT CULTURES (INCLUDING HEBREW CULTURE) BUT IS BURIED BY WELL-MEANING SCRIPTURES TRANSLATORS SUCH THAT WE CAN HARDLY SEE IT IN PRESENT DAY SCRIPTURE RENDERINGS. SEXUALITY WAS NOT SOMETHING SEEN AS DIRTY, OR TABOO, BUT MERELY AS MUCH A PART OF LIFE AS BREATHING AND EATING. NATURALLY THERE WERE RULES ABOUT SEXUALITY (LAWS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY, INCEST, ADULTERY AND SUCH), BUT IT WAS THESE PROHIBITED ACTS THAT PERVERTED WHAT YAHUSHA CREATED AS NORMAL AND VITAL. FURTHER, SEXUAL ILLUSTRATIONS AND METAPHORS AND WORD PICTURES WERE PART OF EVERYDAY LANGUAGE; AGAIN, NOT AS RUDE OR SUGGESTIVE BUT MERELY AS A WAY TO COMMUNICATE IN WELL-UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTABLE TERMS.
THE POINT IS THAT THE RITUAL OF PULLING THE SANDAL OFF THE FOOT AND SPITTING WERE COMPLETELY SEXUAL IN THEIR MEANING. RECALL HOW IT IS THAT IN HEBREW THOUGHT WHEN A MAN MARRIES A WOMAN HE ESSENTIALLY PUTS ON HIS WIFE AS AN ARTICLE OF CLOTHING. SHE BECOMES A KIND OF COVERING FOR HIM JUST AS HE PROVIDES A DIFFERENT TYPE OF COVERING FOR HER. THUS THE SCRIPTURES WILL AT TIMES REFER TO A WIFE AS A “GARMENT” FOR HER HUSBAND (THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL AND MEANINGFUL METAPHOR, NOT DEMEANING). THE SANDAL IN OUR STORY (OF THE BROTHER WHO WON’T MARRY THE WIDOW) IS REPRESENTATIVE OF JUST THIS SORT OF IMAGERY. THINK OF THE STORY OF JUDAH AND TAMAR AS I EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU: THE SANDAL IS THE WOMAN’S VAGINA AND THE MAN’S FOOT REPRESENTS HIS PENIS. THE MAN (ACCORDING TO THE LEVITATE MARRIAGE RULES) IS SUPPOSED TO WEAR (BE INSIDE) THE WOMAN, BUT HE WON’T, THEREFORE IN THE RITUAL THE WOMAN PUBLICLY REMOVES THE SANDAL FROM HIS FOOT.
NEXT SHE SPITS NOT IN HIS FACE (AS MOST VERSIONS SAY) BUT IN FRONT OF HIM; THE SPIT REPRESENTS HIS SEMEN. ANCIENT SAGES SAY THAT THE RITUAL WAS THAT THE JILTED WIDOW WOULD SPIT IN FRONT OF THE BROTHER, ONTO THE GROUND NEXT TO HIS BARE FOOT. THIS ESSENTIALLY RE-ENACTS THE STORY OF ONAN AND TAMAR WHEREBY HE WOULDN'T PLACE HIS SEED INTO TAMAR BUT INSTEAD CHOSE TO “SPILL IT ONTO THE GROUND”. AS THE FINAL INSULT ON THE BROTHER, THE WIDOW DECLARED THAT HE WOULD BE KNOWN AS THE “UNSANDALED ONE”; THAT IS THE ONE WHO REFUSED TO DO HIS DUTY OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. NOT THE PART ABOUT NOT MARRYING HER BUT THE PART ABOUT GIVING HER A MALE CHILD. IT'S KIND OF LIKE TELLING A MAN TO `GROW A PAIR AND MAN-UP IN TODAY’S LINGO AND GIVING HIM A REPUTATION OF BEING A GUTLESS WEAKLING OR WUSSY-MAN.
YAHUSHA WAS EVEN ARGUING WITH SOME SADDUCEES AND IT INVOLVED THE ISSUE OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE IN MATTHEW 22.
“The Sadducees did not believe that a person is resurrected from the dead (risen to new life). So some of them came to Yahusha and said: ‘Teacher, Moses wrote that if a married man dies and has no children, his brother should marry the widow to continue his life. Their first son would then be thought of as the son of the dead brother. But what if he had six brothers and the first one married her, but died without having any children. So his wife was left to the next brother. Then the same thing happened to the second and third brothers and finally to all of them. Then at last the woman died. So when she’s (apparently `as you say’) raised from the dead, whose wife will this woman be since she’d been married to all seven brothers?’ THEY WERE OF COURSE TRYING TO CATCH YAHUSHA OUT WITH CHILDISH HYPOTHETICALS. But Yahusha answered, ‘Nup, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Damn! You don’t even know what the Scriptures YOU YOURSELF TEACH even mean! And you definitely have no idea about the power of Yahuah do you! DON’T YOU KNOW THERE’S NO MARRIAGE IN THE NEW KINGDOM? People won’t be having weddings and families after they’re resurrected from the dead! They’ll all be like divine messengers (angels). And as for people being raised from the dead, this is obvious because Yahuah states that He’s the Alahim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob doesn’t He? We’ll He’s not the Alahim of death, so they must all still be alive in some form, asleep, waiting to be resurrected”. And the crowds were surprised and astonished to hear what Yahusha was saying”. MATT 22 BRS
OBVIOUSLY LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WAS WELL KNOWN IN YAHUSHA’ DAY AND HE IN NO WAY DISPUTED ITS VALIDITY. HOWEVER THE ARGUMENT HE WAS ENGAGED IN WAS REALLY ABOUT THE RESURRECTION. THE SADDUCEES WERE CITING THEIR TRADITION TO YAHUSHA ABOUT RESURRECTION AND TRIED TO USE THE LAW OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE TO PROVE THAT RESURRECTION WAS NO MORE THAN A CULTURAL THING CARRIED FORWARD INTO A NEW PHYSICAL WORLD RULED BY A NEW PHYSICAL KINGDOM. THEY SAW NO SHAMAYIM (HIGHER REALM) OR SPIRITUAL ELEMENT TO RESURRECTION (OR TO LEVIRATE MARRIAGE); ONLY THE EARTHLY AND PHYSICAL AND POLITICAL ASPECTS. THEREFORE THEY USED LEVIRATE MARRIAGE TO ARGUE AGAINST YAHUSHA’S POSITION. THEY SAID THAT IF A MAN DIED WITHOUT CHILDREN, AND A SUCCESSION OF HIS BROTHERS MARRIED HIS WIDOW AND EACH DIED AND EACH FAILED TO SIRE A CHILD WITH THE WIDOW, AND THEN THE WIDOW DIED, WHOSE WIFE WAS SHE AFTER THE RESURRECTION? WITH THE IMPLICATION OF COURSE THAT THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WAS NOT THAT THE WIDOW BECOME A WIFE, BUT THAT SHE BECOME A MOTHER (THE MOTHER OF THE SON OF THE DECEASED MAN). YAHUSHA RETORTS THAT TO ARGUE THIS IS POINTLESS BECAUSE THIS WILL BE OF NO ISSUE IN THE WORLD TO COME; A WORLD THAT WILL BE MORE SPIRITUAL THAN PHYSICAL IN NATURE AND DIMENSION AFTER THE RESURRECTION (MEANING THE GENERAL RESURRECTION NOT HIS RESURRECTION).
RAISING CHILDREN AND PROVIDING A DECEASED MAN WITH A SON WOULD HAVE NO MORE MEANING THEN. LAWS DEALING WITH WIDOWS AND FAMILIES AND WAYS TO AVOID SOCIAL INJUSTICES ARE MATTERS PERTINENT TO THE PRESENT PHYSICAL WORLD, NOT TO SHAMAYIM AND THE FUTURE WORLD-TO-COME. FURTHER THERE WON’T EVEN BE ANY MARRIAGE BECAUSE OUR NATURES WILL BE LIKE THAT OF ANGELS/MESSENGERS THAN OF HUMAN BEINGS. THUS THE EXAMPLE OF MARRIAGE AS A BINDING TOGETHER OF SPIRITS AND OF PERFECT TRUST WILL NO LONGER BE NEEDED.
DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT YOU WON'T BE MARRIED TO YOUR SPOUSE IN THE NEW YERUSHALAYIM? ONE OF YOU MAY BE ON THE TOP FLOOR PENTHOUSE LEVEL AND THE OTHER MAY BE IN THE BASEMENT - I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY RICHES YOU EARN HERE WHILE ON EARTH. THE RICHES OF COURSE ARE NOT EARTHLY POSSESSIONS BUT THE JEWELS OF OVERCOMING EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD THROUGH YOUR BEHAVIOUR - PREPARING FOR THE NEXT!
If two men are fighting, and the wife of one man tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the other man’s nut-sack (GENITALS) you must cut off her hand, no mercy, no questions asked!
Also don’t lie and try to cheat people by having two sets of `stones in your pouch’ (measuring weights), one to get more when you are buying, and the other to give less when you are selling. If you weigh and measure things honestly, Yahuah your Alahim will let you enjoy a long life in the land He’s giving you. But Yahuah is disgusted with anyone who cheats or is dishonest.
THIS ODDBALL LAW IS ONE CONCERNING THE IMPROPER INTERVENTION OF A WOMAN (A WIFE) IN A BRAWL HER HUSBAND IS HAVING. THE CASE IS THAT TWO MEN GET INTO A FISTY-CUFF AND THE WIFE OF ONE OF THEM DECIDES TO HELP HER HUSBAND BY GRABBING THE NUT-SACK OF HIS OPPONENT. AND THIS LAW SAYS SHE IS NOT TO DO THIS THING, AND IF SHE DOES SHE IS TO HAVE HER HAND CUT OFF AS A PENALTY. AT LEAST THIS IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO SAY. THE LIKELIHOOD OF A WOMAN GRABBING THE PRIVATE PARTS OF A MAN WHO WAS IN A FIGHT WITH HER HUSBAND IS STRANGE TO IMAGINE AND THERE'S NO RECORD IN JEWISH LITERATURE OF SUCH A THING. SO WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?
FIRST, THIS IS ABOUT A COMMON CIVIL FIGHT, NOT WAR. THIS FIGHT IS NOT ON THE BATTLEFIELD IT’S ABOUT TWO YISHARALITES DISAGREEING A LITTLE TOO VIGOROUSLY OVER SOMETHING.
SECOND, THE PENALTY OF THE OFFENDING WOMAN GRABBING A MAN’S GENITALS SEEMS COMPLETELY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE SENTENCE OF HAVING HER HAND CUT OFF.
THIRD, THE DIVINE INSTRUCTION REFLECTS COMPLETE ABHORRENCE AT ANY KIND OF BODILY MUTILATION AS A JUDICIAL PENALTY, SO THIS REALLY MAKES LITTLE SENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BIGGER PICTURE. THEREFORE WE NEED TO LOOK UNDER THE SURFACE TO SEE WHAT WAS INTENDED.
THE GENERAL CONSENSUS IS THAT THIS DIVINE LAW IS FIGURATIVE, NOT LITERAL, AND THAT THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE IS FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS BECAUSE FAIRNESS IS A KEY INGREDIENT TO FUNDAMENTAL SET-APARTNESS. A WOMAN GRABBING A MAN’S GENITALS WOULD BE A HORRIBLE, HUMILIATING EXPERIENCE IN THAT ERA (EVEN MORE SO THAT IT WOULD BE NOW). FURTHER THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE FIGHT WAS CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HER HUSBAND. THEREFORE FOR A 3RD PARTY TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF ONE COMBATANT IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION AND TO TAKE THE STRONG ACTION THIS WOMAN APARANTLY TAKES, IS UNFAIR, IT’S CHEATING AND UNWARRANTED.
BUT IT’S ONLY WHEN WE MOVE ON TO THE INSTRUCTION THAT FOLLOWS THIS, THE DIVINE LAW ABOUT USING CORRECT WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, THAT WE SEE SOMETHING REALLY INTERESTING. AND WHAT WE FIND IS THAT THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION (NOT TO HAVE ALTERNATE STONES IN YOUR POUCH) IS REALLY AN INTERCONNECTING BRIDGE BETWEEN THE DIVINE LAW OF IMPROPER INTERVENTION IN A FIGHT AND THE DIVINE LAW OF HONEST WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. IT'S WHAT WRITERS CALL A DOUBLE ENTENDRE; IT OVERLAPS TWO THOUGHTS AND THE WORDS HAVE PARALLEL MEANINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY.
ONE MINUTE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A DUDE’S NUTSACK AND THE NEXT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WEIGHTS (OR STONES) IN A POUCH (I THINK THE REFERENCE IS OBVIOUS). THE INSTRUCTION IS TO GIVE A FAIR AMOUNT WHEN BUYING AND SELLING ACCORDING TO ONE SET OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. SO BOTH INSTRUCTIONS COME DOWN TO THE ISSUE OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND THE USE OF THE WORDS “STONES” AND “POUCH” ARE USED TO SHOW THE UNDERLYING CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DIVINE LAW OF THE IMPROPER INTERVENTION IN A FIGHT BY THE WOMAN, AND THE DISHONEST USE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES TO CHEAT SOMEONE.
THE POETRY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE IS CERTAINLY FASCINATING ISN'T IT, BUT DON’T FORGET WE NEED TO BRING IT BACK TO TODAY AND SEEK THE BEHAVIOURAL INSTRUCTION, NOT JUST DEAD, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE.
People of Yisharal, do you remember what the Amalekites did to you after you came out of Egypt? You were tired, and they followed along behind, attacking and killing off those who could not keep up with the others. This showed that the Amalekites are hideous beasts with no respect for Yahuah, so He’s going to help you capture the land from them, and give you peace. But when that day comes, you must wipe out the Amalekites so completely that no one will remember they ever existed.
WHO ARE THE AMALEKITES THAT YAHUSHA WANTS YISHARAL TO NEVER FORGET AND TO EVENTUALLY DESTROY? WELL, IF IT WEREN’T FOR YAHUSHA CHOOSING TO PUT THEM FRONT AND CENTRE AS THE ARCH-ENEMY OF YISHARAL, THEY WERE ACTUALLY A RATHER UNREMARKABLE PEOPLE ABOUT WHICH LITTLE IS KNOWN. GENESIS TELLS US THAT THE MAN AMALEK WAS A GRANDSON OF ESAU (JACOB’S TWIN BROTHER), WHO WAS RAISED BY ESAU’S SON ELIPHAZ. THEREFORE AMALEK WAS RELATED TO YISHARAL AND WAS A SHEMITE (DESCENDANT OF NOAH’S SON SHEM), BUT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY HEBREW (A TERM COINED WITH ABRAHAM REGARDING THE BLOOD-COVENANT THROUGH CIRCUMCISION) THAT AUTOMATICALLY MEANS THAT AMALEK (AND THE AMALAKITES) WERE CONSIDERED THE OUTSIDE NATIONS (GOYIM/GENTILES). NEVERTHELESS THE PEOPLE THAT AMALEK SPAWNED AND GREW INTO A NATION WERE ESPECIALLY WICKED IN YAHUSHA’S EYES. IN FACT THEY ARE PRESENTED IN THE SCRIPTURES AS A TYPE, A PATTERN, PROBABLY EVEN AS THE EPITOME OF AN ENEMY OF YISHARAL.
NOTICE IN THESE VERSES THAT YAHUSHA SAYS YISHARAL IS NEVER TO FORGET WHAT AMALEK DID TO THEM; THAT AMALEK ATTACKED YISHARAL AS THEY WERE STRUGGLING TO ESCAPE THE GRIP OF THE PHARAOH AND JOURNEY TO THE PROMISED LAND. AMALEK DIDN’T SEEM TO HAVE ANY RATIONAL REASON TO HATE AND ATTACK YISHARAL, AS YISHARAL HAD DONE NOTHING TO THEM THAT IS RECORDED IN THE SCRIPTURES OR ANY OTHER KNOWN HISTORICAL NARRATIVE. AMALEK HATED THEM (SO FAR AS WE KNOW) SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY EXISTED. THEY BEHAVED AS A COWARD AND WITHOUT HONOR AS THEIR METHOD WAS TO ATTACK AT THE REAR OF THE MILES-LONG COLUMN OF YISHARALITES, WHERE THE WEAK AND THE ELDERLY STRUGGLED TO KEEP UP.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT THEY DID WAS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR; AND AS YOU’LL RECALL, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS WAS THE ISSUE OF THE PREVIOUS FEW VERSES OF THIS CHAPTER. IT WOULD BE A LONG TIME BEFORE YAHUSHA WOULD FINALLY DIRECT YISHARAL TO BRING ABOUT THE ANNIHILATION OF THE NATION OF AMALEK. IT WAS KING SAUL, ABOUT 250 YEARS OR SO AFTER THE TIME OF MOSES, WHO WAS GIVEN THE DIRECT ORDER BY YAHUSHA TO ATTACK AMALEK AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF RIDDING THEM FROM THE WORLD.
WHEN WE DUST OFF THE HISTORY BOOKS AND LOOK CLOSER WE SEE THAT AMALEK IS ALSO SYMBOLIC OF THE DRAGON SATAN, THE GREAT EVIL ONE, ACCUSER, FATHER OF LIES AND THE ULTIMATE ENEMY OF YISHARAL (AND OF MANKIND AND YAHUSHA). IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YAHUSHA’S ATTITUDE IS TOWARDS SATAN, AND WHAT OUR ATTITUDE IS TO BE TOWARD SATAN AND HIS FOLLOWERS, THEN STUDY THE STORIES OF AMALEK. YAHUSHA IS IN THE PROCESS OF TOTAL GLOBAL ERADICATION OF SATAN, HIS FOLLOWERS, AND EVERYTHING SATAN POSSESSES. AND HE WILL DO IT IN THE PATTERN OF HIS GENOCIDE UPON AMALEK.
SO WHILE WE ARE TO LOVE AND NOT HATE THAT PERSON WHO HAS PERHAPS DEFRAUDED US, OR SLANDERED US, OR PERHAPS EVEN TRIED TO KILL US, WE ARE NOT TO LOVE AND ACCEPT THOSE WHO YAHUSHA HAS EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIED AS MARKED FOR DESTRUCTION BECAUSE THEY ARE HIS ETERNAL ENEMIES WHO OPPOSE HIS KINGDOM. AMALEK WAS ONE OF YAHUSHA’S ENEMIES; SATAN AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE ANOTHER. NOTICE HOW THE INSTRUCTION OF DEUTERONOMY 25 IS TO AT ALL TIMES “REMEMBER” WHAT AMALEK DID TO YISHARAL, AND HOW YAHUSHA HATES THEM (MEANING YAHUSHA REJECTS THEM), AND HOW HIS PLAN IS TO USE YISHARAL AS HIS DIVINE INSTRUMENT OF FINAL DESTRUCTION UPON AMALEK.
THE MODERN DAY BRIDE OF YAHUSHA, ALAHIM OF YISHARAL IS EQUALLY TO “REMEMBER AMALEK (SATAN OUR OLD SLAVE-DRIVER)”…..THE NATION AND PEOPLE OF SATAN…..AND TO BE PREPARED FOR SET-APART WAR AGAINST THEM. THAT WAR IS NOT FAR OFF AND WE BETTER BE WELL-PREPARED FOR IT; IT WILL BEGIN WHEN YAHUSHA RETURNS AS THE DIVINE WARRIOR LEADER AGAINST SATAN AND HIS FOLLOWERS. BUT WHILE LONG AGO THE PREPARATION FOR YISHARAL WAS SPEARS AND BOWS AND SWORDS, FOR US IT IS TO TRUST IN YAHUSHA AS OUR DELIVERER AND IN HIS LIVING WORDS, USING THEM (MAINLY ON OURSELVES) TO OVERCOME SATAN FROM COMING THROUGH US .
