Scroll to Scroll:

Todays Parsha #34: BaMidbar (in the wilderness)

PART 1: THE LAST AND CURRENT TORAH PORTIONS
ANSWERS TO LAST WEEKS STUDY QUESTIONS (BeChukkotai):
1) What is the relationship between a line in this Torah portion and a provision in the
US Constitution that would later cause strife leading to the Civil War? Please
name the chapter and verse in your answer.
In Leviticus 27:3 the value of a man between 20 and 60 is set at 50 shekels. But
27:4 puts the value of a woman at 30 shekels. In the decades leading up to the
Civil War, there were active debates throughout the nation about applying this
standard of measure as the difference between a white man and a black man.
There were also debates aboutand I know this is distasteful but it is trueas to
whether a white woman was superior to a black man or vice versa.
As a result, the Constitution allowed that a black person had 3/5th the value of a
white one. Some abolitionists protested and eventually this led straight to the
battlefields of the Civil War. Ironically, even when freed slaves joined the Union
troops and served with great courage and distinction, they were only paid 3/5ths
of the wages of a white soldier of equal rank and responsibilities. The same ratio
applies to infant males and females in 27:6.
2) If you know the answer to #1, tell me about the part of the Torah was ignored by
slave-holders leading up to Civil War?
It is clear that other provisions about the humane treatment of slaves were not
followed. Torah demanded that a slave that was made blind or got a chipped
tooth from their master had to be set free. Other slaves were supposed to be set
free in their 7th year or at the Jubileenone of these things were done and many
other such instructions from Torah were also ignored.
I think Moshe would have liked what Thomas Jefferson once said: Slavery is
like a wild wolf and we hold the wolf by the collar. We can neither let the wolf
go nor continue to hold on to it. I fear this matter can only be resolved in
bloodshed.
3) What is the relationship between this part of Leviticus and the prophet Daniel?
The 70 weeks that Daniel prophesied about happened just after the Land enjoyed
its Sabbaths for 70 years. More than that though, these two parts of Scripture have
the number 490 in common. By Daniel prophesying on the day equals a year
timescale which we talked about before, 70 sevens or weeks equals 490 days, and
hence, 490 years.
1|Page

In the same way, the Land resting for 70 years because it did NOT get the
Sabbaths it deserved meant that apostasy had existed for 490 years. In other words
you need 490 years to ignore 70 years of land sabbaths.
4) The same answer in #3 links this part of Leviticus to Yshuahow?
The land enjoys its Sabbaths and in a way, so does Yshua at the time of his
death. There are two 6-patterns in play here that mirror each other from the day
of Yshuas death to his resurrection. First, Yshua spends 6 hour on the stake
and then gets his rest by dying shortly after this time. Second, he spends three
days and three nightstotal for all days and nights is 6and then is
resurrectedhis new life being a kind of Shabbat for the rest of us.
The other linkage is that Daniels 70 weeks are talking about the time from the
issuing of the decree to rebuild all Jerusalem to the day of Yshuas death, 490
years later.
5) What line in either the Torah or Haftorah reading is specifically talking about the
moment of Yshuas death?
Jeremiah 17:13 reads: O YHWH, the hope of Israel, All who forsake You will be
put to shame. Those who turn away on earth will be written down, Because they
have forsaken the fountain of living water, even YHWH. (Jeremiah 17:13 NAU)
YHWH is forsaken because His plan was rejected by those killing His Son
Yshua, who was the first to bring living waters and was the living water. The
moment Yshua dies a spear is thrust in his right side and blood and water pour
out!
AND NOW FOR THIS WEEKS PORTION
1) Meaning of this weeks Torah portion and summary of contents:
BaMidbar means in the wilderness and it begins with a census being taken of the
nation, particularly of men 20 years and older who are able to serve in combat. The
total comes to 603,550 excepting Levites who cannot be counted for this purpose.
After this more details are given for how the Levites are to maintain the Tabernacle as
well as their own purity.

Vayedaber YAHWEH el-Moshe bemidbar Sinay be'Ohel Mo'ed be'echad

lachodesh hasheni bashanah hashenit letsetam me'erets Mitsrayim lemor.
Read Parsha (English-Number 1:1-4:20). This week, we will read the entire portion
together.

2|Page

1) Play by Play commentary where appropriate.

2) Point out key Hebrew words/terms. Color Commentary:
BEECHAD LACHODESH HASHENI BASHANAH (1:1) = in the first month of
the second year [after the Exodus]. The Israelites arrived at Sinai on the 1st day of the
3rd month of Sivan (Exodus 19). The last 21 chapters of Exodus ended with that year,
and just into the 1st day of Abib (year 2).
As for the rest of the overall chronology between Exodus Leviticus and Numbers, it is
clear that Numbers in particular is not following a linear chronology. It works like
this:
1) Year 1Exodus year (Exodus chapters 1-39): 1447 BCE
2) Year 2Moshe erects Tabernacle 1 Abib (Exodus 40): 1446 BCE
Instructions on various offerings given, followed by ordination of the
priests for a total of 8 days; Nadab and Avihu die, 1-8 Abib (Leviticus 110).
Every tribal leader gives an offering to inaugurate the Tabernacle for a
total of 12 days, 1-12 Abib (Numbers 7); various priestly instructions for
the Tabernacle are also given (Numbers 8).
Instructions for 2nd Pesach given right at Pesach, 14 Abib (Numbers 9).
Censuses are taken week of 1 Iyar (Numbers 1:1; 18) and various
regulations and various regulations are given (Numbers 1-6)
3) Year 3A vague period of shorter trips from Mount Sinai to various local areas
as the Shekinah cloud moved about the Sinai Peninsula. These trips are not
directly recorded and throughout this year+ of time the working assumption
seems to be that wherever the cloud leads they will return to the mountain as the
central location. I derive this conclusion from here:
(Num 9:18) At the command of the children of Yisral departed, and
at the command of they camped. They remained camped as long as
the cloud dwelt above the Dwelling Place. (Num 9:19) Even when the
cloud lingered many days above the Dwelling Place, the children of
Yisral guarded the Charge of , and did not depart. (Num 9:20) And
so it was, when the cloud was above the Dwelling Place a few days:
according to the command of they camped, and according to the
command of they would depart. (Num 9:21) And so it was, when the
cloud dwelt only from evening until morning: when the cloud was taken
up in the morning, then they departed. Whether by day or by night,
whenever the cloud was taken up, they departed.
3|Page

(Num 9:22) Whether two days, or a month, or a year that the cloud
lingered above the Dwelling Place to dwell upon it, the children of
Yisral camped, and did not depart. But when it was taken up, they
departed. (Num 9:23) At the command of they camped, and at the
command of they departed. They guarded the Charge of , at the
command of by the hand of Mosheh.
At a minimum, this adds a full year, a month and 2 days to the stay at Mount Sinai
that, by the time of this moment, had already a full year pass (comp. Exodus
40:1,17 to Numbers 9:1-2) giving us a full two years. Therefore the departure
from Sinai on 20 Iyar is in this year, #3, not year 2. 1445 BCE
Final preparations are made to leave Mount Sinai, departing Iyar 20
(Numbers 10:11-11:10).
Rest of the year (Leviticus chronicles this time: 11:1-27:34).
Rest of the year (2nd witness): Numbers 11:11-19:22. [40 year
Punishment Clock starts here-Numbers 14]
4) Year 40Miriam and Aaron die; Moshe gives his last addresses and then dies,
followed by 30 days of mourning (Numbers 20:1-Deuteronomy 34:12) 1407
BCE
5) Year 41Only 39 years completed from start of Punishment Clock by the time
Moshes mourning is concluded, Joshua must wait a year before entering Canaan
(Jubilee Zero). 1406 BCE
6) Year 42Joshua attacks Jericho and begins conquest of Canaan. Spring of 1405
BCE
SEU ET-ROSH KOL-ADAT BENEY YISRAEL (1:2) = Take a head count of all
the congregation of the sons of Israel. Later details make it clear they are counting
from 20 years on up. There is a split in the Rabbinic community as to how this was
done. Some confine it only to what the text says, based on the lists of family names.
Others point out that everyone over 20 had to put in a half shekel into a special fund
for Yom Kippur. Therefore, if you count those half shekels you will get a very quick
and totally accurate total for the men 20 and up that year. I believe both methods were
used, so a very meticulous and accurate count it must have been!
In addition, because of the language of Exodus 30:12 regarding the atonement tax,
many authorities believe this is the second census in Numbers 1, and there was a
previous one before the Tabernacle was erected in Exodus 40. I understand why
other authorities suggest there was only one census, recorded twice, and that the
timing was 1 Cheshvan (the second month from Tishri) per Exodus 30 and that it is
being recalled here in Numbers.

4|Page

My problem with that idea however is that it goes against the pshat of the previous
verse (1:1) that we are already in the second year. I just dont see Moshe flip
flopping back a year that quickly.
REUBEN (1:5) = behold, a son! Very appropriate for a first born. ELITZUR = (1:5)
My God (El) of the rock. Perhaps he was born near some kind of shrine??? ELIAB
(1:5) = El is My Father! (Behold a son (of) My El the Rock. El is my Father.)
SHIMEONSHEULMIELZURISHADDAI (1:6) = These names spell out: You
(pl.) hear [Shimeon] of the peace of Elohim [Sheulmiel], the Almighty My Rock.
Sheleumiel is probably also known by the name of Zimri (Numbers 25:14).
JUDAHNAHSHONAMMINADAB (1:7) = Praised [Judah] in the Initiator
[Nahshon] of my kinsman who is noble [Amminadab]. Nahshon is Aarons brother
in law and therefore Miriams husband.
ISSACHARNETHANELTZUAR (1:8) = There is repayment/recompense
[Issachar], the gift of El [Nethanel] little one [Tzuar]!
ZEVULONELIAVCHELON (1:9) = My habitation [Zebulon] is El My Father
[Eliav] Who is strong [Chelon].
YOSEFEPHRAIMELISHAMAAMIHUD (1:10) = Yah has added [Yosef]
fruitfulness [Ephraim]. My El has heard [Elishama] my majestic kinsman [Amihud].
Also, according to 1 Chronicles 7:26, Elishama is the father of Nun who is the father
of Joshua.
MANASSEHGAMALIELPEDHAZUR (1:10) = Causing to forget [Manasseh]
the reward of El [Gamaliel] that the Rock has ransomed [Pedhazur].
BIN-YAMINAVIDANGIDONI (1:11) = Son of my strength (or right hand)
[Bin-Yamin], My father is judge [Avidan] and One who cuts down [Gidoni].
DANAHIEZARAMMISHADDAI (1:12) = A judge [Dan], my brother is help
[Ahiezar] and my Kinsman is Shaddai [Ammishaddai].
ASHERPAGIELOCHRAN (1:13) = Happy one [Asher] the occurrence of El
[Pagiel] is trouble (to you) [Ochran].
GADELIASAPHDEUEL (1:14) = Fortunate one [Gad] El has added [Eliasaph]
the knowledge of El [Deuel].
NAPHTALIACHIRAEYNA (1:15) = I have struggled [Naphtali] for my brother
is evil [Achira]. EYNA means fountains so I am not sure how that fits.

5|Page

ELEH KRUEY HA-EDAH (1:16) = These are the representatives, but literally,
these are the called out ones from the congregation.
BEECHAD LACHODESH HASHENI (1:18) = the first day of the second month.
The Gregorian date is: Rosh Chodesh, Saturday, April 26th, 1446 BCE. This was a
Shabbat and New Moon day, so the people would already have been assembled for
services. This was not considered work to write their names in a ledger, although
under Oral Law which came much later it would be considered work.
TOLEDOTAM (1:20) = Records of generations. There is no separate word for
records around TOLEDOTAM, thus validating records of generations as the right
meaning. This becomes important when looking in Genesis 2:4, These are the
TOLEDOT of the heavens and the earth in the day (or time) they were created. This
hints at more than one creation. For more information please see Genesis Decoded.
Note on 1:46- the 603,550 people total is the exact same total as Exodus 38:26, so it
seems no one died from that time until now or the number of deaths equaled the
number of new births.
MISHKAN HA-EDUT (1:50) = the Tabernacle of the Testimony. The inner part of
the Tabernacles main function is to hold the Ark the Covenant.
MINEGED (2:2) = a certain distance. While the figure isnt given here, it is clear
from Numbers 35:5 that the distance is 2000 cubits, or 3000 feet. This is also the
same figure for the Shabbat day journey, or the maximum travel distance the Rabbis
allowed on Shabbat, see Acts 1:12. Numbers 35:5 says that 2000 cubits around is the
size for the pasture lands set aside for the priests.
AL PENEY AHARON AVIHEM (3:4) = on the face of Aarons lifetime, or during
the time of Aarons life. The use of the metaphor on the face means in the
presence of so obviously Aaron had to be alive when Nadav and Abihu died. This
verse is also important as it show this part of Numbers is contemporaneous with
Leviticus 1-9, as other data also demonstrates.
VANI HINEH LAKACHTI ET-HA-LEVIIM MITOCH BENEY YISRAEL
TACHAT KOL BECHOR PETER RECHEM MIBENEY ISRAEL VEHAYU LI
HA-LEVIIM (3:12) = I have separated the Levites from (the other) Israelites, so that
they may take the place of all the first born who (first) open the womb among the
Israelites and the Levites shall be Mine. This means that every Levite (except for first
born, see note below) takes the place of an Israelite first born in any other tribe.
However if there are more Israelites than Levites who are first born in a given year,
then a 5 shekel tax will redeem the overage on the Israelite side.
KOL ZACHAR MI-BEN CHODESH VAMAIAH SHNAYIM VEESRIM ALEF
(3:39) = all the males over a month old were 22,000. However there appear to be 300
additional Levites from the sub tribes of Gershon, Kohath and Merari, which would
6|Page

bring the actual total to 22,300. These 300 missing Levites who are not counted are
a mysterious reading across all ancient versions (LXX, Peshitta Tanakh, Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Targums).
There are two possibilities to explain the shortfall: Either this number of 22,000 is a
rough estimate that is 300 off, and this is an idea I personally hate because it goes
against the whole point of counting in the first place, or the 300 are FIRST BORN
Levites that cannot be redeemed for the first born of Israelites because they belong
to Abba YHWH alone. Naturally I incline to this explanation as the most likely.
Note for 3:46-50: The fact that the text here tells us there was an overage 273 first
born sons of Israel outnumber the Levites goes a long way to proving Numbers 3:39
was not a scribal error at 22,000 and confirms that 300 Levites (again probably first
born) were not counted in the tally. Otherwise there would be no need to charge
22,300 total Levites could ransom all 22,273 first born Israelites. The total
redemption money would be 1,365 shekels by the sanctuary weight (see Numbers
3:50).
TACHASH (4:6) = some translate as blue but the word probably refers to dolphin
skins.
VE-DISHNU EL-HA-MIZBEACH UFARSU ALAV BEGED ARGAMAN (4:13) =
they shall remove the ashes from the altar and place a purple cover over it. While
purple or reddish blue was an important color, it apparently was less costly than the
sky blue cloth, since the latter did not get dirty.
BALA (4:20) = literally, being swallowed but referring to the sacred furniture
being packed away or wrapped up for transport. The idea is the Kohathites cannot see
these objects even for a second, even as they are being put away, lest they die.
A Very Special Bonus Teaching (and Lesson for Me):
ApologetiX Revisited
Sometimes in this faith walk you can make some very unexpected but welcome friends.
In Hebrew Roots of course we do spend a lot of timeme especiallycontrasting
ourselves with some of the things that are radically different in mainstream Christianity.
But sometimes, we need to also pay attention to what the church does right. Or, to be
more accurate, what some people in the church do right.
That said, let me recap the situation of the last three years with my friend, John Jackson,
the lead vocalist and head writer of the contemporary Christian band ApologetiX.
Now some of you might suspect that I am not a big fan of Contemporary Christian music
in general, and you would be right, for some reasons that are pretty obvious and not
worth mentioning right now.

7|Page

But ApologetiX is different, as they do parodies of pop and rock songs but swap out the
words for a more biblical message. In other words, they do exactly what I do, write
Biblical parodies.
In 2012, a friend of mine forwarded to me the first ApologetiX song I ever heard and I
was stunned because I never thought a Christian band would sing about the Name, He
spelled His Name with just Y-H-W-H they sang, spoofing the Village Peoples hit,
YMCA. The last refrain of the parody put me in tears of joy: Yahweh, Yahweh, thats
a name of renown. Yahweh, Yahweh, its a most awesome sound. Y-H-W-H. The highest
One is Y-H-W-H. A few months later, I was in Canada recording my own professional
studio versions of my parodies, My Name is Yahweh (Backstreet Boys, I Want it That
Way), Say Youll Write that Gospel, Levi (Wild Cherry, Play that Funky Music
Right Boy) and a bunch of others, including a studio version of Mithras that no one
seems to have heard of.
At any rate, when I got back to the States, I resolved that I would write to ApologetiX
and tell them how much I appreciated what they were doing, because when they talk
Biblical history at least they are nearly always spot on. I did not expect anyone to write
backit was just a fan email saying thanks.
But to my astonishment, the lead singer did write back. Not only that, he offered to put
the ITUNES link to my album on HIS newsletter that more than 60,000 people receive
every week, and that was just the start of his generosity.
In other discussions, it became very clear to me that John Jackson was not just a musician
but a serious Biblical believer with a very strong grasp of Scripture and subsequent
church history. I dialogued with him on several advanced topics and from where I sat he
knew what he was talking about. He did the work. Granted we have different theologies
to be sure, but I know an informed believer when I see one. One time though, I must
admit, I was a bit strident when he commented that Christmas was seemingly pagan
and I told him to switch seemingly for definitely and he wrote back telling me he
appreciated my feedback.
Then at some point, for whatever reason, I stopped hearing from him for long stretches of
time. At first I thought it was because he simply did not have time to get back to me on
some questions I hadI wanted to get his feedback on some tracks I did for example
but then another picture emerged.
I got on his email list and he would send band updates every week or so and it was clear
he was having major hardships and crises in a variety of areas. It simply was taking all he
had to just keep the band going and when he wasnt doing that, he had a wife and five
kids to take care of.
Every once in a while then, I would write to him and give a word of encouragement,
praying for you and the band, that kind of thing, and then something odd began
happening: the emails I sent were shot back as undeliverable. I tried two more times, and
8|Page

the same thing happened. Had I been dropped from his list? Uh, no, because I still got the
updates, but my replies were not going to him for some reason. And I really wanted him
to know I was pulling for him and the band because of updates he sent that said stuff like
this:
J. Jackson, lead singer and lyricist for ApologetiX here.
Some fans got this message Friday, but many didn't, and this one includes an
update (unfortunately, not a pleasant one). I believe I was made for this job; it
combines what I love most with what I do best. As Liam Neeson said in the
movie Taken, "I don't have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of
skills." Alas, as the one who handles the finances for both the band and my
family, right now I also have a very particular set of bills.
Once again, the band has a number of large bills coming due, and they're still six
months behind on paying me. Last week, I had to make an expensive visit to the
hospital to get treated for a lingering illness. Friday morning, our minivan broke
down and had to be towed to the shop. Today, I found out it needs a new (used)
engine, which will cost $3300, including installation. Yes, that's the unpleasant
update.
Asking for financial support is not one of my skills, and I wish it weren't part of
my job. But, as I've found out, it's a part of ministry.
I always go to God with our needs before coming to you with them. No matter
where our provision comes from, it ultimately comes from Him.
And when John here does list what a person can do to help the band, the #1 request he
has is for prayer. Always. But my point here is simply to show how odd it felt when I,
wanting to help, couldnt get my emails to him! At this point, I could have assumed the
worst that he simply put me on the black list so my stuff would not come through. Maybe
I offended him by criticizing his pro-Christmas stand, I thought, but on the other hand
that was like 2 years ago. Was he still mad about that, I wondered, even though he SAID
he was not? Well, there was only one way to find out.
So finally I just broke down and wrote to him from my Hotmail and under several
different emails I had for him. And thats when I heard back from him.
John told me that the other email was his personal one and that he wanted me to reach
him there. The band had to filter out anything unsolicited from their public address
because it was crashing their servers.
And in that same email, I made a request that he do a parody of a song I really liked, but
he responded back and told me he did spoof that song less than a year agoAND TO
PROVE IT HE SENT ME WEB LINKS TO THE ENTIRE ALBUM! These links were

9|Page

not the MP3 tracks but allowed me to stream the entire songs and I was floored with that
generosity.
So of course, having felt a bit sheepish that I assumed the worsthe didnt know that but
it wasnt the point as I should have known better--I wrote back and thanked him
profusely for his generosity and I reviewed his album Easter Standard Time and told
him I thought it was great, listed my favorites and so on. I also said that if he needed a
favor from me in terms of where I have some skills, to let me know. Thats when he
wrote me back again and, if you think I was shocked before, this response made the
previous one look mild by comparison, and I have omitted some personal stuff in what I
reproduce here:
Thank you very much, Andrew! And thank you for your gracious offer of
assistance, too! Im so glad you enjoyed Easter Standard Time. I take that as a
triple compliment, since you are my Jewish brother in Christ, a scholar, and a
fellow parodist!
We are currently working on a project that I think would be of particular interest
to you. Its another them album, with one song for each of the 12 so-called Minor
Prophets. We have been releasing the songs periodically and should have it
complete, Lord willing, within a couple of months. I think you will enjoy it. In
the meantime, here are some other songs weve released in the last year or two as
our gift to you
Thanks again! God bless you! Your friend,
J.
J. Jackson
ApologetiX (That Christian Parody Band)
And with that, he sent meI havent even counted them allI think about 50 MORE
song links, including 5 whole albums of stuff. So think about thishere I was thinking
not exactly the most kosher thoughts I could have, and John turns around and again blows
away my expectations. I mean, heres a guy who is really struggling to make ends meet
and he just gives me tons of stuff that he would charge for totally free, with no
expectation for anything in return. And what did I do? Wonder about why he didnt get
back to me? Bad move Andrew, I told myself, and yet even up until a few moments ago
as I write this, I still did not get the full measure of his generosity.
I looked at the streaming links and realized I was not on the main website for the band. I
was in the ApologetiX STORE. It was a commercial link. Then I looked at the bottom of
the page and it said, If you are having problems downloading these as MP3s please
click here. I did and guess what? Now I have their MP3s on my computer after all!

10 | P a g e

But there is also a good reason why I am admitting this to all of you: It was a very
valuable lesson to me. Here I was interpreting something for which I simply had
insufficient facts on, and I made assumptions that were simply not correct. However, if
nothing else, I hope what I went through is a good example as to why, even if we are
dealing with Christians who dont agree with us, doesnt mean we always understand
their intentions.
Thank you John Jackson, for being my teacher and not even realizing it!

Torah Question of the Week:

Why would Abba YHWH command so many sacred coverings be made from
porpoise skins and snails blood when both creatures are considered un-kosher?
END PART 1

11 | P a g e

PART 2: THE HAFTORAH

Torah Question of the Week:
Why would Abba YHWH command so many sacred coverings be made from
porpoise skins and snails blood when both creatures are considered un-kosher?
No one knows for certain, but I believe it has something to do with Abba YHWH
teaching us that we, who are unclean with our sins as these creatures are unclean to
eat, can approach Him if we repent.

1) Haftorah portion (English- Hosea 2:1-22) and discuss common themes with the
Torah portion.

Vehayah mispar beney Yisra'el kechol hayam asher lo-yimad velo

yisafer vehayah bimkom asher-ye'amer lahem lo-ami atem ye'amer
lahem beney El-Chay.
Venikbetsu beney-Yehudah uvney-Yisra'el yachdav vesamu lahem
rosh echad ve'alu min-ha'arets ki gadol yom Yizre'el.
Imeru la'acheychem Ami vela'achoteychem Ruchamah
2) Our linguistic commentary
We need to look at the set up to this portion, or chapter 1. Hosea has three children
with special names and meanings:
JEZREEL (2:4) = YHWH plants. But also this is meant to remind the reader of Ahab
and Jezebel and what they did in the valley of Jezreel. Their flagrant rejection of
Yahweh is what Yahweh wants to show graphically through Hosea marrying a harlot.
LORUHUMAH (2:6) = No-Compassion. This means there will be no compassion on
Israel when Abba YHWH punishes her for her sins, which will happen in a small
number of years from now.
LOAMMI (2:9) =Not My people. By going after the Baals, the Northern Kingdom
rejected Abba YHWH and so He will reject them (for a time).
ADAH (2:13) = adorn, but also harking to one of the wives of Lamech, the first
person to have more than one wife and the first person to admit to killing more than
one person in Scripture. Her name was also ADAH. This seems appropriate given
the fact that the overall theme is using marital infidelity as a metaphor for how Abba
YHWH feels when His bride Israel cheats on Him by worshipping other gods!
12 | P a g e

Just to make sure this interpretation is right, the name of Lamechs other wife,
TZILLAH is mentioned directly in connection with harlotry also in Hosea! Lets
see
13

They offer sacrifices on the tops of the mountains and burn incense on the hills,

under oak, poplar and terebinth, because their shade (TZILLAH- ) is pleasant.
Therefore your daughters play the harlot and your brides commit adultery.
(Hosea 4:13 NAU)
So both wives of the first polygamist are encoded in Hosea and included directly in
his discussion about adultery and plural marriage. Hmmmm.
MIDBAR (2:14) = wilderness, harking back to BMIDBAR, or in the wilderness,
the exact Hebrew name for the book of Numbers and this opening portion of
Numbers. Perhaps this is why the rabbis mated the parsha to Hosea in the first place.
ISHIBAALI (2:16) = These words can mean husband but ISHI can also mean
man as well. The idea here is that Hosea doesnt want to be called by the normal
word for husband which is BAAL because of its association with the pagan god
Baal. So even in the kosher context of marriage, Hosea would rather be known as
her man rather than her Baal because she has had too much of Baals already!
Bonus Teaching: The Great Faith Beyt and Switch
So coming up shortly, in our Torah Though for the Week, we are going to be focusing
on the life of the real Peter or Keefa, the fisherman whom Yshua called his rock, and
we are going to try to separate the historical man from the legends that surround him.
This is of course dovetailing with some of the other studies weve done together
recently, such as seeing how the 4th bishop of Rome, Clement the First, advocated
Torah observance in about 90 CE.
However, before we can do any of that, we need to also drill down to a granular level
to try and really understand where our faith started and how others hijacked its true
intentions, if not the message itself.
Of course there are many paths to this understanding that we might and in fact have
taken. Some of it has to do with languagesAramaic or Greek principallyand
other things have to do with politics and misappropriating history. Still others have to
do with the elevation of man-made traditions that obscure what the Scripture is really
saying. All these, and more, are valid exercises, but this week I am focusing on
something even more fundamental and basic: The way we think about the text.
In order to explain this idea well, I need to basically eliminate all these other factors
so that only my sole focus is being considered. In other words, I will be
hypothetically assuming for the sake of simplicity that all issues of text variants, bad
13 | P a g e

traditions or inferior receiving language from an original have been dealt with. Let us
assume then, only for the sake of argument, that the text is 100% fixed and 100%
universally agreed on in its wording. My contention is that, even if that is true, we
still have other huge problems getting back to the original Nazarene-Messianic faith.
The issue is how we process the text, not the text itself, so now I need to define two
different schools of thought: the holistic and the transformative. Lets use some
examples.
Example #1: the two kings. To begin with, lets say this is a story about two kings, I
will call them King A and King B. Now King A is very old, but he has reigned
successfully for a very long time and people are used his rules, his style and ways of
doing things.
Then one day King A dies and King B assumes the throne. The question is this: Will
everything that King A did for many years stay intact with King B only adding minor
modifications to the processes people are used to, or will King B instead wipe out
everything King A did and start from scratch, with the people not being allowed to
even think about how King A did the same thing in the past? The point is, if it is the
former approach, then King B is HOLISTIC, using what came before as a template
and building on it and tweaking it further for the needs of his reign. But if King B
wipes everything out that King A did, then King B is TRANSFORMATIVE and what
came before is irrelevant as it has been superseded. Make sense? I hope so, because
heres example #2.
Example #2: Imagine on the left is a picture of baby boy and on the right is a picture
of a grown man. Now imagine both the baby and the man is one and the same person
at different stages of life.
Heres the question then: Is it true that because the man needed all his experiences
growing up to become who he is that the child that was is in effect still a vital part of
him? Or would you argue instead that the child has been erased and standing in his
place is the man? If you agreed with the first statement, you are HOLISTIC; if the
second, you are TRANSFORMATIVE. And, depending on which of these you are,
this will in turn dictate how you view the FIXED text of the New Testament.
My point in looking at all the surviving witnesses and carefully scrutinizing the text
over many years is that our faith was originally HOLISTIC but the Gentile Church
made it TRANSFORMATIVE.
Lets get back to King A and King B to see why. If King B was King As son, then it
seems very likely King B would continue as his father did, if for no other reason than
it is in part a family tradition and the people King B rules now liked that style, but
King B need not be a total slave to that style either. So a Father-Son dynasty is more
likely to be holistic.

14 | P a g e

On the other hand, if King B was a foreigner who invaded King As territory, then
King B is more likely to throw out everything those people were used to and
IMPORT or IMPOSE his own cultural norms on those same people. Therefore, a king
who gets in through military conquest or assassination is more likely be to be
transformative.
Heres the thing though: When we get to the Gospels, Yshua makes it clear he did
NOT come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets but to fulfill them through proper
understanding. He further clarifies that not even the smallest idea from Torah will
pass away so long as heaven and earth are still here. Yshua therefore is HOLISTIC
by that definition, as are the apostles and others who write the NT. Yshua builds on
what is already there and then elevates it to the next level without destroying what
came before.
Further, what gave birth to this holistic view of Scripture was something inherent in
the Hebrew-Jewish culture the NT sprang which, quite frankly, was not well
transmitted to later Gentile Church leaders. It was a process of comparing all parts of
the Scripture, from earliest to greatest, to get the widest and most reliable range of
meaning. It was what Hillel the Great called drashing, or comparing all the
occurrences of a word or concept in the text.
By contrast, many in the Gentile Church movement took a different approach where a
single Scripture that seemed to suit their purposes was pulled out and showcased,
while other passages that might have disproven their idea were ignored. And, if that
inconvenient Scripture was the so-called OLD testament, so much the better; since it
had TRANSORMED into the NT. And once it transformed, the old form was gone,
like King A and like the baby photo, and no one need think on the previous versions
at all anymore.
So now all this analysis brings us to the text itself. Since the text is fixed, the only
way for different schools of thought to arise is determined by ones individual mental
processes. Does a person see the holistic or the transformative? And, if my experience
has any weight in this analysis, you cant really do both but must be overwhelmingly
one or the other.
For example, a person may claim they are holistic in that they believe the Old
Testament as they call it was a shadow pointing to the type that is Messiah, and that
Abraham, Moshe and David were all predictive templates of aspects of Messiah.
Therefore, because the Old informs us on the New, they claim they are holistic.
But, when they tell you that the Torah itself is done away with and that we no longer
need worry about keeping Shabbat or the Feasts, no longer need worry about dietary
laws and the like, they have transformed the text into something it was not originally
and that original vessel is gone.

15 | P a g e

Some though will counter that, if they are transformative, that such was predicted or
made necessary by conditions on the ground, i.e. no Temple or priesthood exists
anymore, so in that sense they are still holistic to the extent that what they can keep
from before they do and Father Yah, not them, did the transformations.
However, I still disagree, because the root concepts behind the priesthood (having a
mediator), whether by the head of the house, a son of Aaron or Messiah remain the
same; only the modality or configuration changed, not the need for the concept. But
the way the church usually seems to deal with these matters they seem far too eager to
throw everything out, not just the modality, so therefore, still transformative.
And so, to show all of you how the Scripture remained the same but the method of
understanding it changed, giving rise to counterfeit theologies and claims, I offer the
following table of data:
Scripture
Holistic View
Transformative View
Do not think that I've
Torah is eternal and
Once Messiah fulfilled
come to loosen Torah or
unchanging, so Messiah
the Torah the Torah itself
the Prophets. I have not
did not come to unravel it had served its purpose and
come to loosen but to fulfil
but to clarify it. We are
was no longer needed.
them through proper
often told that word of the Therefore Messiah did not
meaning. For truly I say prophet is fulfilled when
invalidate what came
to you that until heaven
that word is shown to
before him but instead
and earth pass away not
come to pass with a given
showed its ultimate
one Yodh or one stroke
event. Yshuas coming
purpose. That having been
will pass from Torah until
fulfills the prophets in
done, we no longer need
everything happens. All
300 places, in that now we
the original vessel if we
who loosen, therefore,
know what those prophets
have the Messiah.
from one (of) these small
meant.
commandments and teach
thus to the sons of man,
will be called little in the
Kingdom of Heaven, but
all who do and teach this
will be called great in the
Kingdom of Heaven. For I
say to you that unless your
righteousness exceeds
more than that of the
scribes and the Pharisees,
you will not enter the
Kingdom of Heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-20 AENT)
Behold, I Paul say to you, Because man is required to
The circumcised are
if you are circumcised,
act on all the Torah
clearly an inferior race of
then Mashiyach is a thing
requirements and not just
people who rejected
that has no benefit for you. some, circumcision alone
Messiah which is why the
16 | P a g e

I testify to you again

is of no benefit to you
Church is of course the
(return to my testifying),
because you received it
New Israel. So if you get
that every circumcised
automatically as an infant
circumcised, you have
man is obligated to act on without intentions on how
become Jewish and
the entire Torah. Those of you would do covenant. A
therefore did not receive
you who are in Torah and
covenant must be 100%
grace. Since also no one
who are seeking
accepted or it is 100%
can perfectly keep Torah,
justification (from it), you
rejected and if the latter,
we must rely on Messiah
have ceased to be from
Mashiyach is of no benefit
and the Spirit to keep us
Mashiyach, (and therefore)
to you because he wont
sanctified and we cannot
you have fallen from
have in his family those
rely on them and the
grace. For we, through the
who dont keep his
Torah, for we will then
blessings of the Spirit,
Fathers commandments.
serve two masters and
which is from faith, abide In addition, we were never bring everything to naught.
in the hope of
to seek justification from
Therefore the Holy Spirit
righteousness. For in
the Torah itself but only
does not care if we are
Mashiyach Y'shua,
from Father Yah, because
sanctified or not,
circumcision and
as He says often, It is I, circumcised or not, as faith
uncircumcision are
YHWH, Who sanctifies
alone will complete us in
nothing, but faith is
you. Doing a ritual then love and is utterly superior
completed through love.
because it is in Torah is
to what went on before and
(Galatians 5:2-6 AENT)
not enough; instead it must what is now forever gone.
be done in direct
obedience in covenant, or
its worthless.
Let no (pagan) therefore
You Gentiles at Colossae
You Gentiles at Colossae
judge you about food and were thoroughly immersed were thoroughly immersed
drink, or about the
in paganism with family
in paganism, so dont let
distinctions of festivals
and friends and now you
any Jews you might
and new moons and
have left those lies for the
encounter condemn you
Shabbats which were
truth of Messiah, which is
because you are NOT
shadows of the things then
wonderful! Therefore,
doing the festivals, New
future; but the body of
dont let the people you
Moons and Shabbats that
Mashiyach. (Colossians
used to worship with
THEY do. Instead,
2:16-17 AENT)
condemn you for now
celebrate the body of
doing Torah (New Moons,
Messiah which is end
Shabbat, Feasts) because
point of all Torah feasts
all these things reveal
and be completed in
aspects of Yshua to us
Yshua.
and are part of his body.
Therefore, what happened was that, even as the text of the NT was fixed, the people
who had the correct and original holistic view became supplanted by others who did
not have experience with original Semitic concepts and created their own new way of
looking at, and getting wrong, the original message of Scripture. The Messianic
believers were also split along these lines as well:
17 | P a g e

1) For what I call the witnesses, they personally knew and were taught either by
Yshua or his apostles. One might even extend this status to the Seventy other
apostles that were also hand-picked by Yshua, although there is no absolute
agreement or certainty about who all of this group was. Still the witnesses and
perhaps the first generation of their students, extended into the middle of the
second century and could read the books and recall the oral teachings of the
original apostles who taught them. The combination of the two gave them
superior understanding, but their view became increasingly unpopular.
2) This brings us to the presbyters, or the successors that came not from the apostles
but from second, third or fourth generation bishops. The original bishop that gave
birth to these presbyters came to their conclusions on their own, or even if they
were originally taught by an apostle, they diverted from what that apostle said.
3) Also the witnesses, if we take them far enough back, were descended from the
Jerusalem See while becoming bishops of other areas later. Polycarp for example
was taught by Yochanan at Patmos, but Yochanan earlier was in Ephesus, and
before that was in Jerusalem.
4) The presbyters though were bishops of other assemblies, and each assembly had
equal status to all the others. However, because these presbyters had to deal with
not just forms of Judaism that wanted them stopped but also resistance from
pagan religions, it created a narrow view away from the apostles that they clung
too regardless as to how untenable the positions were. These anti-Torah views
then crystallized into traditions that were handed down from one presbyter to the
next, giving their views the illusion of original Messianic teaching.
5) Then when Constantine comes on the scene, he elevates the one anti-nomian
transformative theology and persecutes the original Semitic holistic theology,
resulting in the differences between Hebrew Roots and Christianity that we see
even to this day.
As a result, it was the organizing principle, not the text, which changed. Then when
tradition became second nature, the people under that tradition found they could only
read the Scripture in the manner that they had been taught and not how it actually was
originally delivered.
3) Renewed Covenant portion: (English) Revelation 7:1-17 (all the way through with
applicable footnotes.)
fountains of living water reminds me of another name we saw in the Torah portion.
ENAN (Ahiras dad) means having fountains. And we see another kind of census
for the 12 tribes in this same chapter of Revelation, 144,000 in all.
Special Footnote for this Renewed Covenant Portion
Revelation 7:8
29) There is all manner of speculation as to why these particular names are revealed
18 | P a g e

while others were not, and why they appear in this particular order. The answer to the
mystery lies in the reality that Revelation is a book of spiritual symbols, revealing the
nature of YHWH, Mashiyach, the Kingdom of Heaven and the spiritual man in a sod
or hidden way. Hidden or mystery does not mean we cannot know, it means our
spirits must discern rather than our intellectual logic and reason. The number
144,000 alludes to a type of people, rather than the numerical sum (see footnote on
Rev_14:1) of a people. Many levels of revelation are embedded within these names,
starting with the peshat (plain) meanings of these names:
1) Yehudah: Praise YHWH
2) Reuben: see a Son
3) Gad: a troop is coming
4) Ashur: happy am I
5) Naphtali: wrestling
6) Manasseh: causing to forget
7) Simeon: hearing
8) Levi: joined to
9) Issachar: there is reward
10) Zebulon: exalted
11) Yosip: YHWH has added
12) Benjamin: Son of the right hand
A fatal mistake many theologians make is seeking religious, cultural or theological
identity in Scripture rather than hearing in our spirits and discerning the Word of
YHWH through spiritual eyes. Another reckless mistake is to overlay a dualistic
Greco-Roman mindset over a Hebraic text (see dualism in footnote Jud_1:9) that
completely alters the message.
A full message might be something like:
Praise YHWH (and) see (His) Son (because) a troop is coming and I am happy.
(But they are) wrestling and (it is) causing (them) to forget.
(But now they are) hearing (truth?) and are joined (together because) there is a reward
(that is) exalted and YHWH has added the Son of (His) right hand.
4) Highlight common themes in Aramaic (terms in footnotes which I will read)
5) Apply these themes/issues to modern issues in the Netzari faith. (I think I did this
with the Hosea situation. We should always be looking for ways to make the
Scripture not just understandable to those we love but open its power to minister
and heal FOR us!)
6) Relate to all or part of an Appendix portion of AENT or footnotes from a portion
(Priesthood, p. 926-928).
19 | P a g e

STUDY QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED NEXT WEEK FOR THIS

PORTION:
1) Hidden in one line of this Torah portion we see details that will relate both to
Yshuas birth and death. Where are these details?
2) If you know the answer to #1 then tell me: One of these details that is embedded
in this line of Torah is also repeated elsewhere in the Tanakh in terms of overall
theme. Where is that incident?
3) What is one of the most ironic twists in Hosea regarding the names of the people
involved? Please note, I am not referencing the names of the children, which we
will discuss in the Torah Thought for the Week.
4) If you know the answer to #3, tell me what is the connection between that answer
and Jewish mysticism? (This question is harder than usual!)
5) Which one of the original tribes of Israel is missing from the list of Revelation 7
and why is it no longer there? Please be specific and show the Scripture cite in
your answer.

20 | P a g e

Torah Thought for the Week: The Lost Biography of Peter

I.

Origins.
1) Born in Galilee around the same time as Yshua or a few years earlier, ca.
10 BCE.
2) Peter works in the fishing village Beth Saida and has a separate house
where he lives with his mother-in-law at Capernaum (Matthew 8:14, Mark
1:29, John 1:44, 12:21). The two places are within walking distance of
one another.
3) Life for Galilean fisherman in first century Roman-dominated Judea was
very tough. Between the Temple, Roman and royal (Herod Antipas)
requirements, Peters tax burden could easily exceed 40% of his income.
He would have also had to have paid fees on top of that for his boat, his
ropes his house and a host of other things. Bet he loved the idea of that tax
collector Matthew coming on board!
4) The Peter who emerges in the early parts of the Gospels is both stubborn
and sinful, by his own admission (Luke 5:1-8), and his younger brother
Andrew comes to faith before he does (John 1:40-42)!
5) By the end of the Gospel events and into the book of Acts, it is clear that
Peter has emerged as the true successor in the Messianic movement, but it
is what happens during and after the events of Acts but before his death
around 66 CE that is the focus of this study.

II.

Eastern Missions
1) What seems to have happened, according to Scripture, is that first Peter
spent a long time in Jerusalem and the wider area of Judea, Samaria and
Galilee.
2) In Galatians 1 and 2 however we are told that Peter decides to go east to
preach to the circumcised while Paul went west to preach to the Gentiles.
This decision was made when Paul visited Peter and Yaakov in Jerusalem
ca. 31 CE. Since both Peter and Yaakov were called pillars (along with
Yochanan, see Galatians 2:9), it seem at this early period Yaakov was in

21 | P a g e

3)

4)

5)

6)

III.

charge of the Jerusalem Assembly (or See) or, at the very least, he was coruling with Yochanan, though I believe the former is far more likely.
After being imprisoned and then released in 44 CE, the same year the first
apostle Yaakov Ha-Gadol (James the Great, brother of John, son of
Zebedee) is murdered by Herod Agrippa I, Peter hits the road, apparently
also with his wife in tow, co-laboring with him (1 Corinthians 9:5).
His itinerary takes him both north and east of Jerusalem. Acts 12:19 has
Peter begin by going north to Caesarrea. From there, 1 Peter 1:1 has Peter
in Asia, meaning Asia Minor, which starts on the west coast of modern
day Turkey, and from there his first letter goes where he has been, Pontius,
Galatia, Bithynia and Cappadocia, all going eastwards.
Around the year 48, Peters travels bring him to Syrian Antioch where he
has a confrontation with Paul (Galatians 2:11-14), only to return to
Jerusalem the following year for the Circumcision Council in Acts 15, but
after giving a brief speech he disappears from the rest of the book of Acts.
Peter, however, seems to have remained in Jerusalem for at least one
additional year if not two (51 CE), because that is the time Paul tells us he
met with Peter, Yaakov and Yochanan for fifteen days in that city
(Galatians 1:19). After that time however, Peter is on the road.
However, his last certain missionary stop is in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13),
where tradition says he established the Church of the East, and if Peter
simply followed his previous itinerary it would explain why traditions also
credit him with establishing assemblies in Caesarea, Syrian Antioch and
other stops along this route.

The Mystery Begins

1) About the only thing we can be certain of is that, with all this travelling
going on, there is no way Peter can be doing all these things and be pope
in Rome which is at times more than a thousand miles away from him, and
never fewer than several hundred miles away when compared with his
known itinerary.
2) But from there, the only real clues we get about Peter after he establishes
the Babylon assembly have to do with his travelling companions. It turns
out there are only two known NT figures who travelled with both Peter
and Paul: Silas (a.k.a. Shila and Sylvanus) and Yochanan-Markos, as in
the author of the second Gospel (2 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Peter 5:12-13, 2
Timothy 4:11).
3) In 2 Timothy 4:11, which was written by Paul in 66 CE shortly before he
died, the apostle calls for the return of his former travelling companion
Mark who, although he had abandoned Paul prematurely on an earlier

22 | P a g e

journey (Acts 12:12, 13:13), had apparently done enough penance to get
back into Pauls good graces (Colossians 4:10).
4) How Mark exactly got a second chance from Paul is not known.
However, it seems very likely that Silas gave Paul a good report about
Mark, who was also Barnabas cousin, and Paul may have also heard via
Silas that Mark was also doing well as Peters helper.
5) What also seems to have happened to Peter in Babylon is this:
a) After being in Babylon about 12 years, Peter hears word that the man
he put in charge of Jerusalem, Yshuas half -brother Yaakov haTzadik, has been murdered (Josephus, Antiquities, 20:200), and this
would be in 62 CE, also according to Josephus.
b) As Peter makes his way to return to Jerusalem and stabilize the
movement, he probably takes Mark with him all the way back there to
his home, where Paul will then call for that servant to return and help
him. He may have also, if the tradition is correct as I believe it to be,
dropped off Thaddeus, a member of the Seventy Apostles, at Edessa,
to head up a re-located Church of the East. Either that or Thaddeus
could have travelled with Peter on his way to Babylon and been
dropped off at Edessa years earlier. The Apostle Thomas also visited
Edessa and is credited with establishing an assembly there, but after 52
CE he seems to have relocated to India and stayed there until his death.
c) When Peter does make it back to Jerusalem in late 62 or early 63 CE, I
believe he resumes leadership there for a few years until the outbreak
of the Jewish Revolt in 66 CE where he probably dies and is buried
near Jerusalem.
IV.

Evidence of the Theory and Cover-up by Rome?

1) In his massive work Church History (Book 4, Chapter 5, verses 1-5), the fourth
century historian Eusebius talked about 15 Hebrew-Jewish Bishops of Jerusalem
who reigned from 30 CE to the end of the Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 CE, when
the Jerusalem assembly became a minor satellite congregation (all Gentile, the
Jews were kicked out of the country) of Caesarea.
2) After Yaakov, the second head of Jerusalem was named Symeon or Simon, and I
think this is actually Shimon Keefa, Peter.
3) The Catholic traditions give us several contradictory biographies of this
Symeon. In one version he is Yshuas uncle (brother of his father Joseph, see
Schaaf, Early Church Fathers, p. 99) and in another he is Shimon the Zealot. He is
also sometimes called son of Clopas/Cleopas, making things even more
confusing (Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Chapter 32, verse 1). Even the
supposed death dates of this man range over a lot of years, suggesting several
23 | P a g e

attempts to cover up a painful truth (Hegisippius Fragments, Schaaf, Early Church

Fathers, p. 764-765). The Symeon in the tradition is said to have died aged 120
in about 106 CEbut if he is Peter he would have been dead five decades earlier.
4) What I think happened was that the Roman Church after the time of Clement
(died 99 CE) wanted to make Peter their first pope though he never resided in
Rome. It takes most of the second century before a man named Tertullian begins
to weave the story of the alleged upside down crucifixion of Peter in Rome, which
is then picked up Hegisippius and others down the line. As we saw last week, not
even Ignatius of Antioch references Peters death in Rome and Ignatius also dies
around 106 CE, so this is after his time as well.
5) As for Peter, after his death in the Jewish Revolt, he is buried alongside Mary,
Martha and Lazarus at a place now called Dominus Flevit, in Jerusalem. For more
information on that please see: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalemtomb.htm. Meanwhile, here are the highlights:
a) According to leading scholars and ironically Jesuit priests J.T. Milik and P.B.
Bagatti, the ossuary inscription found there which is a combination of
Herodian and Estrangela Aramaic styles reads Shimon Bar Yonah, the exact
form of Peters name given three times in the Gospel of John. Other ossuary
inscriptions, some in Greek, read Martha and Mary and Eliezer (Lazarus).
b) The use of ossuaries at the site broadly dates it from 20 BCE to 70 CE; after
Rome destroyed Jerusalem ossuaries stopped being used in Judea for second
burials. However, the use of a Christian symbol there, the famous Chi-Ro (the
first two Greek letters for Christos) also in situ on the ossuaries proves part
of the site was used for pilgrims from after the resurrection but before the
Second Temple was destroyed (30 CE-70 CE).
c) The entire area seems to have been a special sight for Jewish and Gentile
believers who could appreciate both Aramaic and Greek inscriptions at the
sight. Some important images are below:

Shimon Bar Yonah inscription

24 | P a g e

Chi-Ro inscription color photo dating at least part of the site to between 30-70 CE:

Martha and Mary ossuary inscription in Greek along with Elieazer (Lazarus):

25 | P a g e

d) On the other hand, no find of this importance is completely free of

controversy. There are some scholars who think the ossuary reads Shimon
Bar Zilla[i] even though the last letter of that name is completely missing.
However, I have not heard any of those scholars comment on the other items
that together form a picture of an early pilgrimage site for Jewish and Gentile
believers in Messiah. The Chi-Ro find in particular would seem to eliminate
the possibility of this being a purely Jewish tomb. Why would first century
believers come there and leave a mark like that if it werent the famous
Shimon Bar Yonah who was buried there?
e) The paleographic question though is very complex, as we are dealing with a
very sloppy scribal hand with a mixture of styles and with some letters
identities open to interpretation. No one however disputes the Shimon Bar
portion of the inscription, and efforts to find consistent rules for the rest can
be elusive.
f) For example, if the last part is YONAH, then the Y or Yodh letter seems
very long when compared to how it might normally look in other inscriptions,
and it is in fact longer than the next letter, the VAV or WAW, which is highly
irregular.
g) On the other hand, the final NOON (N) in the name Shimon is extremely
over-long, and when we compare its oversize length to the relative length of
the Yodh, then the latter seems more reasonable in size. And also along those
same lines, if the Yodh is too long for YONAH, then the second letter, if the
name is ZILLA, would also have to be a Yodh and be equally too long!
h) And if thats not confusing enough the last letter, an ALEPH is in Estrangela
style, and if there was a Y on the end of it to finish ZILLAI, it would have to
curve up from the alephs base as an extension of it, rather than be an isolated
stroke, making it even less likely such a letter was there in the first place.
i) Finally the Chi-Ro was not the only sign that Gentile believers in Messiah
visited the tomb:

26 | P a g e

V.

But if Keefa didnt go to Rome, who went in his place?

1) This is perhaps the most enduring mystery of them all: Who, if anyone, was the
Shimon the Romans knew and enshrined as their first pope?
2) One of the most popular theories, advanced by no less than the great scholar
Ernest Martin, was the Shimon the Magician went to Rome, beguiled the gullible
populace with his magic tricks and claimed to be Peter, perhaps in revenge for his
being humiliated by that same apostle (Acts 13:8-11).
3) Other theories have focused on other Simons, such as Yshuas own brother, or
perhaps the Shimon known as the Zealot/Canaanite. The problem with all of these
so-called evil Simons is there is not a shred of evidence to support the idea. In
fact, because Paul was often in Rome, I would think he would know if a Simon
came to that city other than the apostle that he met face to face quite a few times.
So while one evil Simon might fool the Romans, I dont see them fooling Paul.
4) Another piece of evidence against the real Shimon Keefa or a counterfeit Simon
going to Rome at all is that, if that happened, how do we explain this statement
about Pauls relationship with that assembly?
While I was careful not to preach where the name of Mashiyach had
been invoked, or else I should build upon another man's foundation;
But, it is written: "They, to whom mention of him had not been made, will
see him; and they, who had not heard, will be obedient." (Romans 15:2021 AENT)
5) In other words, we know that Paul labored extensively in Rome for many years
and he does not wish to build on another mans foundations, which seems to
eliminate the idea of Peter, whom Paul knew very well, establishing that
assembly. Even if someone other than Peter or Paul got the first group of
believers in Rome going, the foundations Paul refers to are his own, in that Paul
was the first true apostle to build that assembly up. Which is why we read:
Little more is authentically known of Peter, except that he traveled more
or less extensively, being accompanied by his wife (1 Cor 9:5), and that he
wrote two epistles, the second of which was penned as he approached the
end of his life (2 Pet 1:12-15).
27 | P a g e

The tradition is that he died a martyr at Rome about 67 AD, when about
75 years old. His Lord and Master had predicted a violent death for him
(Jn 21:18,19), which it is thought came to pass by crucifixion under Nero.
It is said that at his own desire he was crucified head downward, feeling
himself unworthy to resemble his Master in his death.
It should be observed, however, that the tradition that he visited Rome is
only tradition and nothing more, resting as it does partly upon a
miscalculation of some of the early Fathers, "who assume that he went to
Rome in 42 AD, immediately after his deliverance from prison" (compare
Acts 111:17). Schaff says this "is irreconcilable with the silence of
Scripture, and even with the mere fact of Paul's Epistle to the Romans,
written in 58, since the latter says not a word of Peter's previous labors in
that city, and he himself never built on other men's foundations" (Rom
15:20; 2 Cor 10:15,16). ISBE Bible Encyclopedia
6) So who went to Rome and was their first bishop, later re-named pope? The
three possible answers are each difficult to bear for many enamored with the
Catholic tradition.
a) The first episcopos or overseer of the Roman assembly was none other than
the Apostle Paul who suffered martyrdom very close to the traditional time
that Peter was alleged to have been crucified upside down. But Paul was a
late-comer apostle who never met Yshua while he was alive, and Paul was of
a much lower rank when compared to the other apostles, as he himself admits
in 1 Corinthians 15:9: I am the least of the apostles and not worthy to be
called an apostle because I persecuted the assembly of Elohim. Nor is this
statement merely one of humility on Pauls partit is reflected in the way he
is treated. In Acts 15, Pauls speech to the Jerusalem Council is only
summarized while Peters is given verbatim; it is Paul, not Peter, who is
commanded by Yshua to go to Rome; and it is Paul who is given the servant
task of delivering the Jerusalem Assemblys mail. So both Pauls
circumstances and lower rank made it less glamorous a claim for a city that
ruled most of the western world and whose believers wanted the best possible
apostolic foundation for their claim because if not, other assemblies could
prove Peter established them, and by that count, they would be superior to
Rome. So Paul did not get that job for them done and they ignored him in
favor of Peter as their first bishop.
b) The alternative is even worse for the Roman view, in that no one of
consequence first organized that assembly! Some unknown believer came
theremaybe from Jerusalemand set up the rudiments of the Roman
assembly, but not so extensive that Paul couldnt take it the rest of the way
and lay his own foundations. So if Paul is not their overseer, then no one that
we know of historically can claim that rank either. If Im them, I would
simply give it to Paul and be done with it!

28 | P a g e

c) However there is a third and less dark possibility to these above two. It may
have simply been a case of mistaken identity after all, not with Rome
confusing one Shimon for another but rather, getting confused with another
man named Keefa, who would have been at Rome after Paul died. Eusebius is
quoting from a man named Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c .215), not be
confused with Clement, the 4th bishop of Rome, who wrote a series of books
that are unfortunately now lost called Hypotyposes. It is in these works that
Eusebius tells us of a man I call Keefa Jr. who was one of the Seventy
second tier apostles: They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the
Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the
fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of
the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and
the one concerning whom Paul says, "When Cephas came to Antioch I
withstood him to his face." (Eusebius, Church History, Book 1, Chapter 12,
verse 2).
7) But is this likely? Could Paul have known two men named Keefa? If so, why
didnt he take the time to differentiate between the two of them, if one is a pillar
and the other literally from the minor leagues? I think this is, while somewhat
possible, highly improbable, and if I had to pick a scenario, I would go with the
one where Paul was the first overseer of Rome and then Rome tried to rewrite
their own history when circumstances changed.
8) The reality is that an overseer at any of the ancient Sees was just as powerful as
any other overseer in a similar positon elsewhere. The bishops of Rome did not
claim fathership over the other bishops elsewhere at any time in the first
century and a half of the faith, during which time the title pope did not even exist,
for them or for anyone else.
9) But by the latter part of the second century, a concerted effort was underway if
not to make the Roman assembly supreme, then at the very least ensure no other
assembly could claim superiority over them.
10) And so it was, because Peter was known to have directly established dozens of
assemblies in both the east and west (more than Paul by the way) that Rome could
not tolerate being established by anyone other than Peter, who as the head of the
apostles, outranked all the others who founded assemblies, especially Paul. And
that would also at a minimum give them equal status with other assemblies that
were also founded with Peter, so really, only Peter would have been sufficient for
their purposes. And in the process, the real Shimon Bar Yonah with his real
ministry and real resting place nearly vanished from the knowledge of the earth.
Im Andrew Gabriel Roth and thats your Torah Thought for the Week! Next week we
will be exploring Naso, or Numbers 4:21-7:89. Our Haftorah portion will be Judges
13:2-25 and our Renewed Covenant portion will be Acts 21:7-32! Stay tuned!

29 | P a g e