Shabbat, fire, and modernity

לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃

שמות לה, ג

Do not burn fire in all your dwellings on the Sabbath day.

Exodus 35:3

What does this commandment mean?

One of the problems we face in trying to keep the commandments of Torah is that most people (anywhere in the world) are not interested in doing so. That makes things harder, since society is not set up to enable observance of the commandments. Rather, we have to struggle against the stream.

Another problem is that even within the minority that does claim to follow Torah, most people do not follow Torah itself but rather an accumulation of centuries of tradition and rabbinic (or other) rulings. These traditions frequently modify, transform, distort, or set aside the actual commandments of Torah. So even those who say they are following Torah are usually not following what it actually says, but something else altogether.

So what about those of us who want to keep Torah in accordance with the actual meaning of the commandments and within our modern life setting? We have to consider each commandment afresh and seek to discern its applicability today. This same question is faced in every age.

With regard to (not) burning a fire on shabbat, the commandment itself sounds pretty clear. However, a number of questions do arise. Here are some of them:

- Does this mean not to start a fire on shabbat, or not to have a fire burning at all?

- What about those who live in cold climates? (One possible answer to this question is that Torah was given as national law for Eretz Yisrael.)

- By saying "in all your dwellings" (בכל משבתיכם), does the mitzvah leave open the possibility of burning a shabbat fire "outside" one's dwelling? E.g., a bonfire in the park? a barbecue in the back yard? (Note that the fire on the altar had to be kept burning by the priests even on shabbat. See Lev. 6:8-13 / ויקרא ו‫,‬ א‫-‬ו . Cf. Maty. 12:5.)

- What is 'fire', beyond the obvious? Is an internal combustion engine (such as in an automobile) an example of fire? The words we use to describe it suggest that it is. But should we adopt a modern scientific definition of 'burning' or 'combustion' -- "the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species," according to Wikipedia -- when seeking to apply ancient Torah to our lives? Or should we try to think only in terms of what 'fire' (i.e., אש) would have meant to Israelis 3,000 years ago?

- By considering such questions and (hopefully) settling on a general approach, are we creating "our own halacha" just like the rabbis have done? Does it make a difference if one says, "This is my opinion, but you may have a different understanding -- or your time/place may require a different observance"? One crucial aspect of rabbinic halacha is that it is considered to be authoritative. In other words, you and I are supposedly obligated to follow what the council of rabbis has decided. But if one does not adopt this attitude, instead according freedom and discretion to all, is that a better solution?

I found a couple places on the web arguing that Exod. 35:3 was only talking about an "industrial fire" -- and thus fires for cooking, warmth, etc. would be ok on shabbat. However, I personally can't see how that interpretation stems from the text.

I know there are various opinions on the shabbat & fire commandment even among the contributors to this blog! I'd be interested to hear your views.

What are the "weightier" matters of Torah?

A while back I was talking with ירמיה about the "weightier matters of the Law" as described in Mt. 23:23:

Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον καὶ τὸ κύμινον καὶ ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος καὶ τὴν πίστιν· ταῦτα [δὲ] ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι.

Woe to you Torah scholars and Perushim, pretenders! For you give the tenth of mint, dill, and cumin; yet you have left undone the weightier matters of the Torah: justice, mercy, and faith. But it is necessary to do these things, and not to have left the others undone.

ירמיה, I remember you suggested that the ordinary translation might not be quite right — or else you had some other insight on the last part of the verse in the Jewish-Greek text, and how it should be interpreted. Could you share your thoughts again?

The God of Wrath vs. the God of Grace

Don't we all know that now we are under the Covenant of Grace? That means that the God of Grace has triumphed! So then, what has happened to the God of Wrath?

Of course, the way I am presenting this idea is somewhat exaggerated. Or is it?

Last week I had an intriguing, but mostly odd, conversation with a friend of mine which expressed something I have heard many times over the years in Christian circles. His basic point was that when he reads scripture he sees that God related differently to humanity in the "Old Testament" than how He did in the "New Testament". Essentially he described the God of Wrath and the God of Grace. He sees all the killing versus the mercy and grace.

I could list hundreds of cases of God's mercy expressed to Israel and the world in the Tanakh. Not even to mention the very fact that God didn't destroy all of Israel in the wilderness, like He wanted to, but relented because of Moshe's pleading. I could also list many times that Yeshua describes God's judgement and condemnation. I'm not going to list them all now; but rather I want to raise this issue, and everyone can read for themselves.

The larger issue is not over specific cases, rather perspective and way of understanding God and scripture. I recognize that very few people actually present two different Gods explicitly. Nonetheless, when we break down their arguments this is what it comes down to. A root of the problem, which most likely will be discussed frequently in the blog, is that as Christianity was developed it set itself in contrast to and in place of Israel. The very thing that Shaul warned the Romans about in becoming prideful in relation to Israel! In doing so Christianity had to rework its relationship to the "Jewish" scriptures. (Another related subject is the fact that the Messianic Writings are "Jewish" scriptures as well!) One way in which it was done was the creation of difference between God's character in the "Old Testament" versus the "New Testament". Clearly grace sounds better than wrath! I believe this attempt was to de-legitimize (to use post-modern terminology) Israel, not God. Regardless, I see this as an affront to God Himself.

God was very clear. He is unchanging. He told Moshe that His name is אהיה אשר אהיה, which is commonly mistranslated as I AM. It's not as much of a mistranslation as it is an attempt to translate something that doesn't translate well. A better translation perhaps could be, "I will always be who I always have been." This may not be the exact meaning, but it better expresses the intent, which is God's eternal nature. God always has been a God of justice and mercy, and He always will be.

Here is one way those close to Yeshua understood the "wrath of God" as expressed in the Tanakh.

2 Kefa (Peter) 2:4-6
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter. (emphasis mine)



Yehuda (Jude) 5-7
Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. (emphasis mine)

I recommend reading the context in which the verses above were written. When one views the scripture properly, as a whole, things make more sense.