Q. Could you explain what is going on in Gen 4.1-8 with the story of Cain and Abel?

A. This is a very interesting story and there is a lot going on, so we’ll look at this verse by verse so the proper context can be brought out. Cain and Abel were brothers by Adam and Eve. They had other siblings (Gen 5.4) not named in Scripture because it wasn’t important. Abel was a shepherd and Cain was a farmer and in v 3 it says that they both came to give offerings “at the end of days” in Hebrew which means it could have been a Sabbath or the end of a particular time span. Knowledge of the type of offerings God required will be needed here to understand what is going on and you must look up the words in Hebrew being used here. A good study of the book of Leviticus will bring that out, so it won’t be discussed here, but it will give insight to what these two were doing. You see the sacrifices and what they meant to God did not start with Israel and the book of Leviticus. God taught them to Adam and this knowledge was passed down. We see Abraham offering burnt offerings, Jacob offering peace offerings and Moses told Pharaoh they were going out to offer sacrifices to the Lord before the Exodus. Cain brought an offering from the ground called a “minchah” in Hebrew in v3 which meant it was probably a thank offering involving some sort of bread offering. Abel on the other hand brought a blood sacrifice and it was a sin offering. We know that whatever was going on, God required a sin offering from Cain also because the Lord had regard for Abel’s offering and did not for Cain. So, Cain became angry and thought his status as first-born was being rejected also. This caused him to be very upset. So the Lord asks Cain “why are you angry?” in v6. Then in v7 the Lord tells him what to do. He says “If you do well” meaning that if Cain was innocent and blameless his thank offering would have been accepted, but he needed a sin offering and then he would feel better because it would have been accepted also. But the Lord said “if you don’t do well, sin is crouching at the door.” Now, what He is saying is this. In Hebrew, the word for sin there is “chata’at” which means a sin offering. The translators of the KJV and NASB just use the English word “sin” but sin offering is implied. You see this many places in the Bible, for instance in Hosea 4.8 it says “they feed on the sin of my people” but it should be translated “sin offering” and the same thing happened in Gen 4 7. Another example of this is 2 Cor 5.21 where it says that Yeshua became sin but it means “sin offering” which gives it a whole different meaning. Yeshua didn’t become sin, that would have made Him a defective offering of Himself. Ephesians 2.14 says that Yeshua “is our peace” but it means our peace offering, a “shelem” in Hebrew. In Isaiah 53.10-11 it says that he rendered himself as a “guilt offering” or “asham” in Hebrew (NASB). There are many more examples of this. So, God was requiring a sin offering from Cain and that is why his offering was not accepted, it had nothing to do with his rejection of Cain as first-born. He then goes on to say that the sin offering is “crouching” meaning “stretched out in submission” at “the door”, or available, for him to offer right now. The verse ends with “and unto you (Cain) shall his (Abel) desire be, and you (Cain) shall rule over him (Abel).” As first-born he had ruled over Abel. Cain feared that Abel’s offering being accepted changed this. God tried to rest his fears. All he had to do was bring the lamb but Cain’s pride got in the way, so he decided to take matters into his own hands and killed Abel, thus restoring himself back into first-born status. That’s what it means in Jude 11 when he talks about “the way of Cain.”. It is simply our pride that gets in the way of doing what God wants us to do, and many have gone that way, too. Well, Cain’s plan didn’t work and he was driven away. To study the Scriptures requires many things. You will have to understand history, the languages, culture, geography, the Temple and it’s sacrifices and biblical time. You have to read the Scriptures as if you were there at the time it was written, and you need a teacher. I want to encourage you and anyone who reads these articles to do that and you will move from one who could tell someone what God said to someone who can tell someone what God means, they are two different things. I hope this helps and thanks for the question.

Q. There seems to be several groups that contended for the religious attention of the people in the New Testament. Is this right and who were they?

A. Just like today, there was not one group that made up the religious ‘conscience” of the Jewish people in the first century. There was a diverse and very often violent opposition to one group by another. No one group spoke for all Jews, unless they got into some sort of political or highly powerful religious position of authority and could force their beliefs on others. Much like politics in the United States, if you can get enough of “your side” in power you can make things happen. There was no such thing as “Judaism” in the 1st century but “Judaisms” due to many different groups (sects), beliefs and teachings. Here is a basic rundown of just some of the varying groups and beliefs that made up the collective belief system in Israel that Yeshua was confronted with and had to “straighten” out, starting with His select group during His ministry, but what the 1st century believers had to contend with once they were sent out. That is only within the borders of Israel, among the people. This doesn’t even include what was waiting for them once they got outside the borders of Israel into the rest of the world.

· Pharisee’s – they had two main groups, but there were others:

*School of Hillel- Ist born was President (or Nasi) of the religious Sanhedrin , they were mainly based from the north, were more into the spirit of the law, wanted converts, Jewish halakah today is decided on their teachings, very eschatological, Paul was from this group.

*School of Shammai- based mainly in the south, strict, had one of their number as “Av Beit Din” (father of the house of judgment) as a “balance” to the Nasi from Hillel on the religious Sanhedrin, believed in the letter of the law, discouraged converts, very eschatological, would contend with School of Hillel over halakah

· Sadducees’s-opposite of the Pharisee’s,believed very little(no resurrection,angels, Messiah etc), accepted only the books of Moses, non-eschatological’

· Boethucians- rich Sadducees, upper class, many were High Priests, rejected the Oral law, non –eschatological

· Sicari- most radical, “cutthroat”, would assassinate anyone who helped Rome

· Zealots- politically opposed Rome, for the most part torah observant, could belong to other groups

· Chasidim- “pious ones”, in the north mainly but not like the Pharisee’s, very eschatological

· Essenes- confusion still exists as to who they were exactly, had many priests who were fed up with the Temple system and priesthood, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, very eschatological

· Theraputae- “healers”, related to the essences and may have been the same group, eschatological

· Am ha Eretz- “people of the land”, common folk, uneducated in the yeshiva’s, either not interested in Torah study or something else, followed the Pharisee’s mainly.

· Hellenists- goes back to the time of the Maccabee’s (Approx. 165 B.C.), influenced by Greek culture and were looked at with distrust by the more traditional groups.

*Judean- not real eschatological or Torah observant.

*Asia Minor-very eschatological and Torah observant.

* Alexandrian-Torah observant,

· Babylonian- Torah observant, did not have these other sects to contend with

Now, knowing this and knowing what these groups believe will help you understand many of the debates and controversies seen in the New Testament. For instance, in Acts 15.1 it says that certain believers came from Judea and taught other believers that a gentile had to get circumcised to be saved. Well, they were from the School of Shammai and we see that Paul, taught in the School of Hillel, opposed them. We’ll see the same argument in Galatians (Chapter 2) were the same doctrine was trying to be taught, and Paul opposed them again. Another example id in Mark 7 and the discussion over halakah and hand-washing. We know from what was being discussed that these Pharisee’s were from the School of Shammai who believed very strongly in ritual hand-washing, but the Scriptures never commanded it and Yeshua makes that point. Anyway, it helps to know who believes what when you read the Scriptures. When it says “Pharisee” it doesn’t mean all the Pharisee’s believed the same thing. Yeshua’s apostles came from some of these groups and had a diverse range of beliefs to deal with. Even after salvation, they still clung to some of these beliefs and you can see how God had to change them in order to receive the truth so they could effectively teach others. The same thing happens today. Just because someone becomes a believer doesn’t mean he automatically discards the belief system he has known. It takes time and good teaching from God to do that, so, patience is needed with believers without compromising the truth they need to know. So, there is nothing new under the sun. Even though we don’t have the same groups today as the 1st century, we still have many denominational beliefs that have to be discarded and replaced. Being called of God and teaching the Word is not to be done by novices. This comes through the revelation of the Holy Spirit and good teachers placed in the body to help guide these believers to the truth the Lord would have them to know in order to make their life a true testimony and a true light to the world, rightly dividing and handling the Word of Truth.

Continued from last weeks article

This week we will pick up where we left off with whether or not Jesus and the Holy spirit are God, and with the concept of the Trinity. Again, the current Jewish view of this would seem contrary but the concept was believed and discussed anciently and there was much agreement on this matter, although not readily discussed today. Certainly, the writers of the New Testament believed it and taught it without much opposition, so that tells you many of those who heard their teachings weren’t totally unaware of the concept.

All three are divine, unique persons , coeternal, coequal in essence (being). God has chosen to reveal this doctrine carefully and gradually. It is a guarded revelation due to our human limitations to understand it. Wrong ideas have produced many heresies that actually threatened the Faith in the past. God has given us many examples of this concept that we still have trouble understanding, and if we don’t fully understand the picture, we will truly struggle when confronted with the reality. For example, look at the mind. It is made up of conscience, will, emotion, intellect and so on. Psychiatric and psychological schools of thought have confronted the human mind and walk away dumfounded over the complexities, and yet we think we have the Creator of that mind figured out? Look at nature, the tree has the root, trunk and branches, the egg has the whites, yolk and shell. Light is one and yet it can be broken down to many colors, some of its essence we can’t even see with the human eye. Time is one yet distinct (past, present, future), space has length, breadth, height and so on. And the atom, well, we haven’t even explored all of that yet. Look at the cell and you will see the Lord giving us a glimpse of His essence. Even the names of God give us a clue. Elohim is masculine plural, used in a collective sense. YHVH is singular but is used for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The names Father (Deut 32.6), Son (Rom 8.14) and Holy Spirit (John 3) represent the individual roles each have to make it easy for us to understand the relationship and functions they have. These roles are not meant to be pushed beyond the clear, intended purposes in which they were given to us. For example, the “Son” does not mean subordinate to in essence to the Father. The Spirit is not a force or wind. The Father speaks of a position of authority, the disciplinarian, the teacher, provider and so on. The Son speaks of the mediator and servant, the Holy Spirit as the helper, comforter.

So, in conclusion, the concept of the Trinity, the three divine “persons” of the Godhead is a biblical concept clearly taught within the pages of Scripture. We should not go beyond the boundaries given in God’s description of Himself, but I hope this brief overview gives you a better understanding of this.

Q.Are Jesus and the Holy Spirit God?

A. Yes and the Scriptures are very clear about that but there are many believers who have a different idea on this concept called the “trinity” but I believe the Scriptures are very clear about it. Contrary to current belief, there were ancient Jewish views on this that is very consistent with how the Trinity is viewed today in Christianity and it was not considered as idolatry or a violation of the Shema in Deut 6.4. There was a very interesting teaching on the Hebrew letter “shin” which has three heads, and there are other teachings, As Christianity developed a theology about this concept, the Jewish view would take the opposite view and that was true with many such teachings. Where Judaism taught something, Christian theology would counter with something different and vice versa. But, with all that said, let’s look at this concept. We’ll start in Acts 5.3 where Peter is telling Ananias that he has lied to the Holy Spirit. Now, if the Holy Spirit was just a “force” or a “power” how could Peter say he lied to an “it?”.You can’t lie to a force/power. You also were to be baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28.19) and you can’t be immersed in the name of a force/power. So, the Holy Spirit has to be something other than a force/power and He is. In Eph 5.30 it says that the Spirit can be “grieved, in Acts 13.2 the Holy Spirit “speaks.” In John 2Cor 3.17 and John 4.14 the Lord is called “Spirit” so that isn’t inconsistent. In Rom 8.26 He intercedes for us, and is called God in Acts 5.4,Genesis 1.2, Psalm 139.7 and 1 Cor 12.11. God is spoken of in the plural many times like in Gen 1.26, Isa 6.8. In Jer 30.5 it says that the Lord says “I have heard “ but it should be ”We have heard.” You can see all three together in Isa 48.16 and Matt 3.16-17. In Ecc 12.1 it says “creator” but it should read “creators” and in Job 35.10 “maker” should read “makers” and the list goes on and on. Yeshua is called God in John 20.27 and Phil 2.5. When you read the beginning of many epistles Yeshua is listed as a co-equal with the Father, and if He isn’t that is blasphemy. So, what does all this mean? God is one in essence (His being), distinct in “persons”, not some multi-faceted manifestation of one being, or “person” if you will. In Jewish mystical teachings like Kabbalah, this multi-faceted concept of one Person is taught through the idea of the ten “Sephirot” or “emanations” but this is just man’s feeble attempt to explain the Godhead. The Father is unique (Dan 7.13), the Son is unique (Psa 40.7-8) and the Spirit is unique (Rom 8.26). All possess a full, equal share of the status of Deity (Mt 28.19-20, Gen 1.26, 2 Cor 13.14). All three have been revealed uniquely in Scripture as God, with Father in Deut 4.35, the Son in Titus 2.13 and the Spirit in Acts 5.4. His nature is the composition of His essence, or being, having been revealed as infinite, a spirit, immeasurable, omniscient, all powerful, omnipresent and so on. His character is the “traits” of His essence, or being, having been revealed to us as perfect, holy, good, just, merciful, truth sovereign, love, light to name just a few. Next week we will continue with this concept in further detail and hopefully “pull” all this together to give you a better idea of who God really is according to His own description of Himself as found in the Scriptures. Please study the verses already given so that it can be built upon next week.

Q.Some people say that the Jews are different from the Israelites and try to make a distinction today. What is your opinion?

A. There are some who believe that the two terms mean different things but in actuality they are really the same people. There have been many false, theological concepts that have developed over the years based on this misunderstanding. So, let's do a basic study in definitions and get to the heart of the matter, using Easton's Bible Dictionary as a source. In the Bible, there are actually three terms used to describe the same people, Hebrew, Jew and Israelite. The name "Hebrew" is a name applied to the Israelites in the Bible only used by foreigners (Gen 39.14,17,41.12). It is also used by the Israelites themselves when talking to a foreigner( Gen 40.15, Ex 1.9). In addition it is used when compared to other nations (Gen 43.32, Ex 1.3,7,15, Deut 15.12). In the New Testament the same contrast exists (Acts 6.1, Phil 3.5). The name "Israel" is the given to Jacob after his struggle at Peniel (Gen 32.28) because as a "prince" he had power with God. This is the most common name given to his descendants. All twelve tribes are called "Israelites" or the "children of Israel" (Josh 3.17, 7.25, Judges 8.27, Jer 3.21) and also the "house of Israel" (Ex 16.31, 40.38). This name is sometimes used for the "true Israel" (Psalms 73.1, Isaiah 45.17, 49.3 John 1.47, Rom 9.6,11.26).After the death of Saul the ten tribes took this name forythemselves as if they constituted the whole nation (2 Sam 2.9,10,17,28, 3.10,19.40-43) and the kings of the ten tribes were called "kings of Israel" while the kings of the other two tribes were called "kings of Judah." After the exile the name Israel was used for the all twelve tribes. The name "Jew" comes from Judah, a son of Jacob. It was first used to designate one from that tribe or to the kingdom of Judah ( 2 Kings 16.6,25.25,Jer 32.12,38.19.40.11,41.3. It is used in contrast to those belonging to the kingdom of the the te tribes, who were called Israelites. While in Babylon ,and after, the name was given to all twelve tribes (Esther 3.6,10; Dan 3.8,12; Ezra 4.12,5.1-5). At the beginning the people were called Hebrews until after the exile when the name was not used used much. Paul described himself as a Hebrew in 2 Cor 11.22 and Phil 3.5 however. So, in conclusion, there are three names used in the New Testament to describe those who have descended from the twelve tribes. The name "Jew", in regards to their nationality and to distinguish them from the Gentiles, "Hebrews" in relation to their language, customs and lifestyle to distinguish them from the Hellenists (Greek-speaking Jews). this contrast can be seen in the Book of Acts very clearly. Lastly, the name "Israelite" will be used when they are described as a people chosen by God and the mandate they have to teach the nations about about God, the Messiah and the redemption. All three names are used to describe the descendants of Jacob, those that come from any of the twelve tribes. Confusion over these biblical defintions exist today and it has caused an "identity crisis" with many believers. Several denominations today believe they "Jews" or "Israelites" when in actuality they are not. This type of believe comes from a severe lack of teaching at one end and a severe lack of personal study with the Lord on the other. Somehow, some believe they are lacking in something, have fallen short spiritually and feel "left out" of something unless people consider them Jewish. In actuality, God doesn't care either way and that is quite clear from the New Testament where Paul says in 1 Cor 7.17-20 that we should walk as God has assigned us. If someone is "circumcised" (Jewish), let him not seek "uncircumcision" and if called by God as "uncircumcised" (Gentile) let him not seek "circumcision" . He says circumcision or uncircumcision doesn't mean anything but keeping the commandments do, as they apply. Peter came to the same conclusion in Acts 10.35 were he says that God is not partial to anyone (Jew or Gentile) and he "who fears Him and does what is right (keeps the commandments as they apply) is welcomed by Him".

Q. What does it mean in Mt 24.12 where it says that the “love of many shall wax cold?”

A. Before we look at what it means we need to define a couple of words. The verse reads “ and because lawlessness is increased most people’s love shall grow cold.” (NASB). The first word we need to define is “lawlessness”, which is “anomos” in Greek. The Greek word for Torah is “nomos” and when you put an “a” before it , it means to be against or “none”. So “anomos” means “no Torah” or in other words people are not obeying God, thus becoming “lawless.” The other word that needs to be defined is “love.” The word there is “agape” and that is God’s kind of love, love that is unmerited. It’s charitable love and the idea Paul was conveying in 1 Cor 13. So with that in mind, let’s look at the verse again in its context. Yeshua is giving signs of the end times. We won’t get into all of that, but He says in verse 12 that because people have a disregard for the Laws of God their God-kind of love will grow cold. So, you have to ask “cold in what way?” There are three areas we will look at . First, their love towards God, which is really what Yeshua is saying here. He said “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Deut 6.4 says we should love the Lord with all our heart, mind and strength and Yeshua said this was the greatest commandment. Well, how do you do that. You love Him by obeying His Word. When you don’t obey Him, you are “lawless” in the sense that His word has no affect on you, you won’t do it. That is not loving the Lord, so your love for Him will grow cold. Paul wrote to the Ephesians that their love for God was well known, but then later in Rev 2.4 Yeshua says they have left their first love and they should repent and do the deeds they did at first, by being obedient. Now, for love to “wax cold” you must have had a love in the first place, which was for the Lord. But, through self-centeredness it grew cold.

Secondly, let’s look at family love. Not obeying the Lord will affect this area, too. To wax cold means to lose the warmth of love for the family and become self-absorbed, self-centered and uncaring for your family. All of these are contrary to God’s word, of course. Do you know why any relationship fails and is destroyed? It’s when one person stops being kind to the other. When parents are unkind to their children, the relationship fails. When one spouse commits adultery, is that being kind to the other? When one abuses the other, is that being kind? Again, when one does not follow what the Lord says (lawless) then the love for your family will grow cold. Lastly, let’s look at some of the social ramifications of this. Society is plagued with this. People will stop acting charitably towards one another as a result of their own sin, or lawlessness. 2 Tim 3.1-4 says: “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” You see, what it all comes down to is when we love God and our neighbor, our love will not grow cold. Now, that doesn’t mean that others won’t mistreat us, cheat on us, hate us ,curse us, try to destroy us, leave us and do all manner of evil against us because they will. People who love themselves tend to gravitate towards people who are kind and charitable because it’s all about what that person can give them. Many marriages fail because those that are self-absorbed marry one who is not like that because they have no intention of giving to the other, but it’s what the other can do for them and it eventually destroys the relationship. In the same way, it’s like that with the Lord. He is a giver and charitable and the selfish want a relationship with Him for what they can get from Him, but when He wants them to give back, they won’t and their love “grows cold.” So, I hope you have a better understanding of this verse and your love for God, family and your neighbor does not grow cold.

Q. I have a general question on Exodus 34.6-7.

Q. I have a general question on Exodus 34.6-7. Can you expand my understanding on these two important verses. Is it true it is a new covenant with his people at that time? (Paul)

A. This portion of the Torah is called the “Midot” or God’s 13 Attributes of Mercy. It has some major commentary in Jewish literature and what we will do is review the events leading up to why God spoke these words and how it relates to the covenant at Sinai. The whole Exodus story is a picture of the individual salvation we receive as believers. They were delivered out of Egypt (the world) by the blood of a lamb (Yeshua) and they arrived at Mt. Sinai. He enters into a covenant with Israel and gives them commandments, which is what He does with a believer today. These commands weren’t meant to save them, they were already delivered but He was going to show them how to love Him, which is the purpose of the commandments even today. Yeshua said “If you love Me, keep My commandments”. Israel then accepted God’s idea of a “holy nation” of kings and priests (Exodus 19.5-8) and then He gives additional laws found from Exodus 20.19-24.11. Moses then will ascend Mt Sinai to receive the stone tablets which were the symbol of this covenant which were the Ten Commandments and the results of disobeying them. God included certain attributes in this first covenant. Well, we know what happened later. Israel disobeys this covenant with the Golden Calf and God is going to destroy Israel and rebuild through Moses, still fulfilling His earlier covenant made with the “avot” or fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). God’s presence or “shekinah” will not be present and Moses rejects this idea (Exodus 33.12-16). To resolve the problem, God gives a “new covenant” which allows His Shekinah to remain even though Israel may sin in the future. God says that He will grant mercy in certain situations and this will give Israel another chance. As a result, Moses must ascend Mt. Sinai again for another “ceremony” if you will. Now, there is no reason to change the commandments in this new covenant, they will remain as before because it is by obeying them that Israel will be a “holy” (set apart) nation. What changes is how the Lord will relate to Israel and so the 13 attributes of mercy are proclaimed. As a result, God comes down in a cloud and says Exodus 34.6-7. These attributes of mercy will allow God’s Shekinah (presence) to remain with Israel even when they sin. However, these attributes do not guarantee that God will forgive, but they allow for the possibility that He will. To experience His forgiveness, each individual must repent and forsake his sin. Each attribute in 34.6-7 can be researched out for their individual meaning, so that will not be done here, but there is an interesting thing in the Hebrew in verse 7. The word “keep” in v 7 is written with an elongated “nun” in Hebrew and it carries the meaning that God will go “far beyond” or “longer” than what He needs to in being merciful. Now, there is a picture being portrayed here. This “new covenant” is not the New Covenant spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah in 31.31-34 or the gospels and epistles. That covenant can be found in Deut 29.1 through 30.20, but it is a picture of it. The word “new” means to rebuild, or to be renewed. In the New Covenant the commandments don’t change because that is what is being written on our hearts, or desires (Jer 31.33). It also is not symbolized by a physical circumcision but a spiritual circumcision of the heart (Deut 30.6). Now, circumcision of the heart is just another way of saying “live” or to be “born from above” or born again. What changes from the Covenant at Sinai to the Covenant in Moab is how God will relate to it. The Lord told the people to circumcise their own hearts in Deut 10.16 and then says in Deut 29.4 that He did not give them the heart/desire to know Him, or eyes to see or ears to hear. That was the problem with the Covenant at Sinai. They failed and died in the wilderness. The New Covenant was “cut” in Moab with a new generation and not only included those present, but those that will be born later ( Deut 29.14-15). Moab means the “seed of the father”. This covenant will be ratified or “cut” in Yeshua Himself, the seed of the father (virgin birth). So, are you getting the picture. Exodus 34.6-7 is really a prophecy of the New Covenant that will be coming later and God is giving us a picture of how it will work and how He will relate to it. His presence will not leave us even though we sin because it is based on His attributes of mercy for those who believe. Those that don’t believe will not receive the benefits of that mercy and their sin will remain and the wrath of God will have to be carried out. There is much more to this but hopefully this will basically answer your question.