Tikvat David Daily D’var

Daily Readings from Torah and the Gospels

If you want to receive these by email daily, send an email to derek4messiah@gmail.com and request to be added. The Daily D’var provides readings for each day and extremely brief notes which may help you put what you are reading in context or know better what to look for as you read. The goal of reading through the Torah and gospels annually is to grow in knowledge, in observance, and in participation in God’s mission to redeem the world.

February 5, 2012 Exodus 18:1-12; Mark 6:1-6a

EXODUS 18:1-12 Jethro hears of the Exodus (1-4), Jethro brings Zipporah and sons to Moses at Sinai (5-9), Jethro’s faith and covenant with Israel (10-12).

NOTES: This story is out of sequence, as recognized by virtually all commentators ancient and new. It is an illustration of the principle stated by the medieval commentators, “there is neither late nor early in the Torah.” In other words, the narratives in the Pentateuch frequently deviate from a chronological order. Jethro comes to Moses while Israel is encamped at Mount Sinai, in other words, sometimes after the events of chapters 19 and 20. Jethro has been caring for Moses’ family, though Torah had not related this information to us before. Zipporah and the children have not been with Moses through the plagues and escape from Egypt. A midrashic story exists explaining that Aaron argued Moses into leaving his family with Jethro and not bringing them into the perils of Egypt. Jethro is the name of Moses’ father-in-law, but he is called Reuel when he is simply described as a Midianite leader, but Jethro when described in his relationship to Moses (and Hobab is possibly the son of Reuel/Jethro). Jethro means something like “abundance” or “superiority.” How do we explain this narrative being placed here out of sequence? It comes right after the Amalek war narrative. The Kenite clan of Midianites of which Jethro is a priest is also a Bedouin type people like the Amalekites. Yet the Israelites had longstanding good will with the Kenites but enmity with Amalekites. Radak (David Kimhi) explains in a comment on Judges 1:16 that this story is here to show the contrast between Kenites and Amalekites in Israel’s dealings (Sarna). This is strengthened by a reference in 1 Samuel 15:6 (Sarna). Jethro’s sacrifice is likely to be understood as part of a covenant of peace with Moses and Israel.

MARK 6:1-6a Yeshua and disciples come to Nazareth (1), in the synagogue people doubt Yeshua’s validity (2-3), Yeshua’s saying about honor (4), Yeshua’s inability to work miracles there (5-6a).

NOTES: The incidents of 6:1-29 are possibly interposed between what was a neater arrangement of miracle stories from which Mark drew. Two sections of Mark have parallel series of a sea miracle, three healings, and a feeding miracle (4:45 to 6:44 and 6:45 to 8:26). Even within these sections there is evidence of layering, as noted before that the Jairus story has a different style than the woman with the flow of blood. So, it is possible that as the ways of telling Yeshua stories developed, we can see traces and layers of development. If 6:1-35 is interposed within a set of miracles, we can bet there is a literary and theological purpose which can likely be discerned. In this interposed section we have three units: the rejection at Nazareth, the sending of the Twelve, and the account of John the Baptist’s execution. Witherington calls our passage, the rejection at Nazareth story, a textbook example of the Greek style known as chreia. A chreia is a short biographical scene which surrounds a saying. The saying here, about prophets, honor, and the hometown, is in all three synoptics. The scene is also in all three synoptics, but placed in different locations. Matthew uses it after the parable collection to show typical rejection. Luke places it at the beginning to emphasize that Yeshua was misunderstood. Mark uses the story, clearly, to show why Yeshua was not widely acclaimed as Messiah in spite of the wonders he performed. The people did not doubt that Yeshua could do wonders. They grant that he has done them (“What mighty works are wrought by his hands!”). In Witherington’s phrase, they see Yeshua as overreaching. He is a person known to them, presumably who showed no sign of divinely given powers as a child. The point of the carpenter remark is not likely disparaging the role of labor, as Galileans were not an aristocratic people and had no aristocracy. The point is more that Yeshua is “like us,” one of the ordinary, and not from some place or group with the kind of power and heritage to be the Messiah. The Nazareth childhood of Yeshua was a scandal for the early disciples. Skeptical historians often say that the Bethlehem birth was invented without historical basis to escape this scandal. And Mark does not avoid describing the scene in terms of disgrace. Looking at Matthew 13:58, the parallel to Mark 6:5, it is apparent that Matthew found Mark’s wording scandalous. He changed “could do no mighty works” to “did not do many mighty works” (note: even Mark says Yeshua did some miracles there). How can we explain “could not”? Is it possible that the very human Yeshua had limitations? Is it possible that faced with pressure of unbelief he had doubts and could not do wonders? The pious (but possibly true) explanation is that Yeshua, as we see with God in other stories, works with human faith and cooperation rather than against it. But Mark does not wish to blunt the scandal and and in light of the fact that he has an agenda to show the hiddenness of Yeshua’s identity, it makes sense that he would emphasize the “could not.” Even Yeshua, the Son of God, was human and experienced failure. Just as his preaching would fail to mobilize all Israel for the kingdom, so his hometown visit failed to create more disciples.

February 4, 2012 Exodus 17:1-16; Mark 5:35-43

EXODUS 17:1-16 The waters of Massa-Meribah (1-7), war with Amalek (8-13), permanent curse on Amalek (14-16).

NOTES: The waters of Massa-Meribah story becomes a repeated theme of preaching about Israel’s unfaithfulness to the Lord (Num 14:22-23; Deut 6:16; 8:2, 15-16; and 9:22; Psa 78:65; 95:8). Sarna notes three themes from later teaching referring back to this incident: Israel trying God’s patience, the Presence and provision of God, and God’s trying Israel to test them. The last station on the way to Sinai is Rephidim. Moses’ straightforward and blunt manner of praying is reflected in this story yet again, this time with his ire directed against the people, who strove against his leadership personally. The place where the water comes out is called Massa (proof) and Meribah (contention). Israel then gets into armed conflict with Amelekites, whom Cassuto described as a nomadic people, similar to Bedouins. Deuteronomy 25:18 recounts the tradition that when Amalek struck, they hit the rear of Israel’s ranks, where the women and children and aged were. Moses is too old to lead the troops and so appoints Joshua. Yet Moses plays the vital role yet again. Just as at the Sea, his intercession (symbolized by his raised rod or, variously, a standard bearing some name or symbol of God according the rabbis and hinted in vs. 15) brings the power of God to the battle. Aaron and Hur (identity unknown, possibly the grandfather of Bezalel and of the tribe of Judah) hold up Moses’ arms. The picture is one of divine-human cooperation. As a result of Amalek’s vicious attack at a time when Israel was vulnerable, they become an unforgivable or perhaps unrepentant enemy. Amalek will attack Israel repeatedly into the early days of the monarchy, possibly as mercenaries hired by other peoples. The story of Esther draws on this history, as Haman is depicted as a descendant of Amalek.

MARK 5:35-43 A friend comes from Jairus’ house to say the daughter is dead (35), Yeshua says not to fear (36), Yeshua only allows the three to follow (37), Yeshua says she is only asleep and the mourners scoff (38-40), Yeshua raises the girl and all are amazed (41-43).

NOTES: We have discussed the evidence that the stories of Jairus and the woman with the issue of blood were combined by Mark though they did not occur together. The grammatical style of the two stories is different, suggesting different sources. Vs. 35 further demonstrates that the woman’s story has been interposed here. In vs. 35, we are told that the messenger from Jairus’ house comes with the bad news “while he was still speaking.” Collins dismisses the idea, proposed by many interpreters, that the woman’s story was interposed to suggest delay. That is, while Yeshua was busy healing the woman, enough time passed that Yeshua missed getting to the girl while she was alive. This is not how Mark presents the story, since he says “while he was still speaking.” Why then would Mark interpose the story of the woman into the Jairus story? Collins proposes that it is because the woman’s story shows the kind of faith required in a frightening situation. The woman believes and is saved. By contrast, the people at Jairus’ house do not believe. No healer can raise the dead. If he had only arrived while she was alive. Yet in situations like this and like the storm on the lake earlier, Yeshua expects people to believe even when the problem seems larger and outside of the ability of a prophet. Yeshua expects that Jairus and his disciples will have no fear, but only believe. The message to Mark’s readers is clear: we may face new dangers, new situations, but Yeshua’s power triumphs over them all. The use of the word sleep for death has raised many questions. Is Yeshua saying she is in a coma? Does it mean death is merely like sleep? Based on other uses of sleep as a term for the state of death in John 11, 1 Thessalonians 5, and earlier writings such as Daniel 12, Witherington argues that sleep was a word used by those who believed in resurrection. It is quite possible that in Galilee the notion of bodily resurrection was not widely accepted. Yeshua, as we see in other stories such as Mark 12:26-27, shares the Pharisees’ belief in bodily resurrection. Those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake. Those who are asleep will live with him. Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go there to awaken him. The idea of death as a state relative to those separated on earth, but only partial and temporary in the heavenly perspective is part of the belief system of the apostles and the Jairus story is an illustration of that larger truth. Many wonder why Yeshua used the phrase talitha kum, which is Aramaic. Some have charged that early Yeshua-followers looked on such words as magical and hoped they could use Yeshua’s words to perform wonders. There is far from enough evidence in the few Aramaic clauses left to stand in Mark for such an assertion. It may be that the simplicity of Yeshua’s words was beautiful in the memory of Peter, who tradition says was Mark’s primary source. It seemed beautiful and worth remembering that Yeshua raised the dead simply by saying, “Little girl, get up,” just as he stilled a storm merely by speaking. It also may be part of Mark’s presentation of Yeshua as the Son of God. After all, isn’t it at least a hint of Yeshua’s greater identity that he, like God in Genesis, causes monumental things to happen with simple verbal commands?

February 3, 2012 Exodus 16:11-36; Mark 5:25-34

EXODUS 16:11-36 God speaks and will answer Israel’s complaint (11-12), quail and manna (13-14), instructions for manna (15-16), each person gets the same and it cannot be kept overnight (17-21), the Israelites ask why they get a double portion on the sixth day (22-26), confusion and no manna on day seven (27-30), manna and a jar kept as a memorial (31-36).

NOTES: Manna gets its name from the Israelites asking, man hu? What is it? Vs. 15 gives the origin of the name and vs. 31 clarifies it. The Hebrew name is simply man. Omer is usually the word for a sheaf of cut grain and occurs only here as a measure of loose grain (thus, vs. 36 explains for those reading later who would not know the ancient measure). It is three and a half liters (thirteen cups of flour, enough for two large loaves). The descriptions of the manna do not fit with any natural phenomenon (aphid secretions, tamarisk sap, etc.), though it is possible God could have multiplied and made extreme amounts of a natural substance. The idea that each person gathered an omer not matter if they tried to get more or less (vs. 18) and that if kept overnight it bred worms (vs. 20) is a supernatural story through and through. We learn something of the institution of the Sabbath and of Sabbath halacha from this chapter. The important regulation that no food is to be cooked on the Sabbath comes from vs. 23. The principle in halacha is that already cooked food may be heated, but any use of cooking that changes the state of food (from raw to cooked, frozen to thawed, etc.) is forbidden. Moses had not relayed to the people the instructions about the double portion on day six. So when it happened, they were confused. Vs. 27 should lay to rest the notion that the Sabbath was kept by the people of God before the Exodus. Although the Israelites were familiar with the word “Shabbat,” since in Mesopotamia there was a monthly Shabbat and since the word derives from the normal word for “cease,” some have used this chapter as evidence that Sabbath observance preceded the Exodus. Yet the Israelites apparently have no idea that the seventh day is for rest and must learn it from the manna.

MARK 5:25-34 A woman with a long story of suffering (25-26), the woman touches Yeshua secretly and is healed (27-29), Yeshua seeks out the one who caused power to go out from him (30-32), the woman confesses (33), Yeshua tells her that faith has saved her (34).

NOTES: As mentioned in the previous section, it is not necessarily that the incident with the woman with the flow of blood happened as Yeshua was walking to Jairus’ house. Mark has intertwined the stories for literary reasons. This story of the woman who touched Yeshua is told in different grammatical style, coming from a different source (see above). The woman is evidently well to do, being able to afford private physicians, but they have depleted her wealth and she is worse. Collins talks about ancient complaints concerning the ineffectiveness of doctors. The idea that the woman would be isolated or an outcast because of her perpetual vaginal bleeding is not true. Collins, citing Shaye Cohen, shows that in the Second Temple period, menstruating women were not secluded. The woman has seen Yeshua touching and healing people and from this the idea of secretly touching him occurs to her. In touching him, she would render him unclean, so perhaps she feared he would not voluntarily touch her. Some have made it a point to claim that Yeshua does not become unclean when he touches lepers and people like this woman with a flow of blood. The text nowhere makes this claim. In order to follow Torah, Yeshua would have to wash his clothes and be immersed and be unclean until evening, a procedure he could easily fulfill by the lake of Galilee (see Lev 15:25-31). The story is full of mystery. Does Yeshua have to know he is healing in order to do it? Apparently not. Is the power Yeshua’s or does the power come through him from above? The description “power had gone forth” suggests the power comes from above and Yeshua is the conduit. Why does Yeshua want to find out who touched him? Is it for the woman’s benefit? Does Yeshua know or not know? The story of the woman is a perfect model of the kind of faith Mark is calling for in his audience. She believes in Yeshua’s power. She comes to him to be saved. She confesses before him her deep need. And she hears from his mouth, “Your faith has saved you.” The word save also means heal. Yeshua heals body and spirit. Our need for him is not simply about afterlife, but about being saved and changed in the present.

February 2, 2012 Exodus 15:27 - 16:10; Mark 5:21-24

EXODUS 15:27 - 16:10 Camped at Elim (27), the people complain about lack of food (16:1-3), the Lord’s instructions to Moses and Aaron (4-5), the Presence of the Lord and the promise of provision (6-10).

NOTES: Cassuto points to the many challenges in understanding this chapter as it stands in its final edited form. A number of things appear to be out of place: (1) Sabbath laws about manna gathering have not yet been given (not until 16:23) but in 16:4-5 it seems as if God already expects Israelites to obey the Sabbath commandment, (2) the stories of quail and manna seem to be linked in confusing ways, and (3) Moses’ announcement in vs. 8 includes things not revealed to Moses until vss. 11-12. In our commentary we will follow Cassuto’s solutions. He says the narratives of Exodus are not in chronological order (Rashi also declares this to be a general principle in Torah narrative). They are thematically arranged: a complaint about water (15:22-27), the complaint about meat and bread (16:1-3), the manna and quail stories combined (16:4-36), and then another complaint about water (17:1-7). The use of three stories about God proving his role as provider fits ancient ideas about storytelling (lessons come in threes). The references to the Sabbath and (possibly) the Tabernacle (vs. 9, “before the Lord”) in Exodus 16 could be the result of the story being told and passed down by later generations before it was added to the Torah (the Torah has many signs of editing by persons later than Moses, which need not contradict the notion of Moses as the originator of Torah). Note that medieval Jewish commentators solve this differently. They find a hint of laws given before Mount Sinai in Exodus 15:25. In the Exodus 16 account, the people were doubtless reluctant to kill their flocks for meat and were growing short on grain. In vs. 8, though Moses had not been specifically told about manna and quail (he only knew there would be “bread from heaven” according to the story details), he may have inferred that the coming manifestation of the Presence would fulfill both requests, meat and bread. Cassuto shows that Moses could have surmised these details from what God already told him. The murmuring people look to the pillar (is it morning or did this happen right away?) and the fire in the cloud brightened so they beheld the Presence and trembled. They trembled before the Presence because their need was made as a complaint instead of a supplication and they rightly feared the consequences.

MARK 5:21-24 Yeshua and disciples cross back over the lake (21), Jairus, a synagogue leader, begs Yeshua to come heal his daughter (22-24).

NOTES: Mark 5:21-43 is all one section, but I am dividing the story in order to have room to comment in more detail on it. The intertwined story of Jairus and the woman outcast with constant bleeding is in all three synoptic gospels and is a major part of Yeshua’s story. The sequence in all three gospels is the same: Yeshua arrives, Jairus comes begging, on the way a woman who is bleeding tries to secretly touch Yeshua and be healed, Yeshua seeks out the woman and speaks to her, and then Yeshua arrives at Jairus’ home and raises his daughter. Here in the first part of the story are several interesting questions. Where does Jairus meet Yeshua? Who is Jairus? Is this story more about Mark’s time than Yeshua’s since it involves a synagogue leader and the disciples in Mark’s generation were in conflict with the synagogue? Mark’s storytelling has not been strictly chronological thus far. As noted, he has made two collections of parallel stories: a sea miracle, three healings, and a feeding miracle. Jairus’ daughter and the woman with the flow of blood are healings two and three. Even these two stories evidently come from different sources. Collins explains that the Jairus story is told with one grammatical style, short sentences in the historical present tense, and the woman’s story in a different one, longer sentences and aorist and imperfect tense verbs. Thus, we need not think that the healing of the woman with the flow of blood happened while Yeshua was walking to Jairus’ house. Mark possibly has brought these stories together for a literary reason, which we will consider later. Jairus meets Yeshua near the lake, but evidently at least some walk away. Yeshua has come back to the side of the lake he was on before the Gerasene demoniac incident. It is possible, then, that Jairus could be the synagogue leader from any of the Jewish towns near the lake (Capernaum, Bathsaida, Chorazin, or others). Jairus is one of the few named people who received a miracle from Yeshua. Richard Bauckham discusses the idea that after Yeshua has ascended, the Yeshua communities had certain people who were well-known as eyewitness, who became followers and told their stories again and again. Matthew does not name Jairus in his version, though Luke does. Based on patterns with other eyewitnesses, Bauckham argues that this means Mark personally was aware of Jairus’ testimony. If Peter was Mark’s source, as tradition says, then it may be that Peter was personally aware of Jairus’ testimony. Furthermore, naming eyewitnesses may have been for the benefit of the readers of the gospels. Mark may have expected his immediate audience to know of Jairus or to have heard of his testimony. It is likely, then, since Jairus is named, that he was known in the Yeshua communities long after Yeshua had gone away. That leads to our final question for this section. Is the fact that Jairus, a synagogue leader, prostrated himself to Yeshua, a reason this story was so important for Mark’s audience. Were they suffering persecution from the synagogue? Were the Jewish followers of Yeshua being forced out of the synagogue? It is possible. And if so it only strengthens Mark’s use of double meaning in Jairus’ words, “Come and lay your hands upon her so that she may be saved and live.” The word “saved” can also mean “healed,” which in Yeshua’s teaching is all one related concept. Salvation is not something for the afterlife or a purely spiritual transaction. People need Yeshua to be saved from all things including death, illness, evil, sin, and judgment.

February 1, 2012 Exodus 14:26 - 15:26; Mark

EXODUS 14:26 - 15:26 The Egyptian army drowned (26-29), Saved Israel believes (30-31), the Song of the Sea (15:1-21), the water at Marah (22-26).

NOTES: Vs. 25 says the chariot wheels of the Egyptians were locked up, perhaps stuck in the mud (making us wonder how the Israelites got their wagons across). Now the flood waters return and destroy them. The Lord saved (yosha’) Israel and they trusted or believed (ya’aminu) in his power and good will. God has said repeatedly his wonders have a purpose to make the Egyptians and the Israelites believe he is the Lord. The Song of the Sea is a hymn that makes the act of God personal for the people of God. The wonders of God are about relationship. The song divides into vss. 1-6, 7-11, 12-16, and 17-18. The first section declares that Israel’s strength is the Lord. The second describes the Exodus in poetic detail (using the poetic ga’oh ga’ah, he has triumphed gloriously). The third section describes the consequences of God’s act, to redeem a people and cause the fear of the Lord to come on other peoples. Vss. 17-18 describe the further consequences, that God will bring them to his sanctuary on his mountain. This is almost certainly a reference to Mount Zion and the Temple, which would not be built for hundreds of years. There is little doubt the Song of the Sea is ancient as it uses Canaanite conventions of poetry (Sarna). So was this reference to God’s abode on a mountain added later or was it a prophetic foreshadowing in song? Cassuto thinks it is something that the Israelites would have known would happen, that God was bringing them to a land where he would establish his worship on a mountain. The Song has been an important part of Jewish liturgy since the days of the Second Temple, according to rabbinic sources (Sarna). Scribes write the words in the sefer Torah artistically, like a brick layer with a brick upon the joint of two bricks. The incident after, at Marah, begins to show how God will solve the problems of the people in the wilderness. God will not let the Israelites suffer plagues like the Egyptians as long as they follow him.

MARK 5:1-20 Transition: Yeshua and disciples arrive on the other side (1), the possessed man in the tombs (2-5), the demons called Legion (6-10), the herd of swine rushes into the lake (11-13), the people want Yeshua to leave (14-17), the demoniac wants to follow Yeshua (18-20).

NOTES: One of the problems to consider with this passage is the timing. Yeshua and his disciples set out to cross the lake at evening according to 4:35. Yet, arriving on the other side, the possessed man is said to immediately approach Yeshua. The story does not seem to be at night. The lake of Galilee is not that large enough for the trip to last until morning. How do we explain this? This is one example of a pattern that can be seen in Mark: his episodes are not truly chronological, but are grouped together in some cases thematically. In 4:35-6:44 Mark has gathered a sea miracle, three healings, and a feeding miracle. The next section from 6:45 - 8:26 also has a sea miracles, three healings, and a feeding miracle. So why the note about them departing at evening if Mark was not planning to keep up the timing in his telling of the story? It would seem that Mark gets his stories from a source and sometimes includes details from his source which do not perfectly fit the final arrangement (from the preaching of Peter, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). The second problem is more obvious: where did this story take place? Mark says “the region of the Gerasenes” (Gerasa, modern Jerash), one of the cities of the Decapolis. Matthew says “the region of the Gadarenes” (Gadara, closer to but not right by the lake). Some feel this is a discrepancy between Matthew and Mark. Others feel the region overlapped and could be described either way (of the Gerasenes or of the Gadarenes). We should say that the gospel writers were true to their sources, even if their sources disagreed. Matthew knew Mark and used Mark, but his information from his sources differed and he corrected Mark by locating the place in the region of the Gadarenes. In any event, the discrepancy makes it impossible to tell where on the lake the story took place. Finally, was there one demoniac or two? Mark and Luke say one, but Matthew says there were two (see Matt 8:28). Again, we learn from this that the evangelists relied on sources (testimony they heard, or perhaps early written stories). Matthew’s eyewitness remembered two and Mark’s one, and Matthew, again, deliberately corrected Mark’s account based on his source (but Luke preferred Mark’s version). What about the greater meaning of the story? The Legion of demons is like a Roman legion (6,000 soldiers), an army of the strong man (Satan), and yet Yeshua’s power is so much greater there is no real contest here. The story of the possessed man of the tombs gives us an idea how powerful Yeshua really was and is. Those who experienced Yeshua gradually came to realize his identity.

.....................

January 2012 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

December 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

November 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

October 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

September 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

August 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

July 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

June 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

May 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

April 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).

March 2011 Archive of Daily Readings (PDF File).