TorahBytes: When God Changes His Mind (Tezavveh & Zakhor)

The word of the LORD came to Samuel: "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." (1 Samuel 15:10,11; ESV)

These verses refer to God's response to Saul's rebellion against him. Saul, the first king of Israel, began well, but as time went by tended to do things his own way rather that trusting in God and his Word. What God said to the prophet Samuel sounds as if God had second thoughts about making Saul king and that if he would have known that Saul would blow it the way he did, then he would have chosen someone else.

This is the kind of incident that someone might use to show that God is not omniscient. To say that God is omniscient is to say that he knows everything. But if he knows everything, how could he regret his own decision? Even if God purposely chose Saul knowing he would fail (which God did know), then would not his response be something more like "Did I not know that Saul would be unfaithful to me?", rather than something along the lines of "Oh no! What have I done?"

That God is omniscient is a given in the Scriptures. The Bible assumes that he is the Creator and Master of the Universe, who never loses control over his creation. It is on this basis that David, Saul's successor could write "Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether" (Psalm 139:4; ESV).

But if God indeed knows everything in advance, then how could he "regret" that he made Saul king? The Hebrew word, translated here as "regret," is nacham. Interestingly this same word is used later on in this same Haftarah portion, where the prophet Samuel says to Saul, "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret (1 Samuel 15:29; ESV). It is helpful that this translation uses the exact same English word in each case, even though the Hebrew word may be understood differently in different contexts. It is better that we are left having to struggle with a supposed contradiction, than having the English translators resolve it for us.

The word nacham carries with it the idea of change. It has two primary meanings. The first is "to relent," which is a change of intension whereby one course of action is replaced by another. The other primary meaning is "to comfort" or "to be comforted". Here the change is an emotional one in which someone feels a certain way, usually bad, and is consoled, thus causing their outlook on life to change. An example of this use is found in Psalm 23, where we read, "your rod and your staff, they comfort me" (Psalm 23:4; ESV)

So nacham denotes what we might call a change of heart or mind. Our Haftarah portion, which uses the meaning of "relent" tells us that this is something that God both does and does not do. When Samuel says that God "is not a man, that he should have regret", he is saying that he is not fickle. He is absolutely dependable. His Word is true and his character is unchanging. He cannot and will not be manipulated by anyone or anything. Those who cooperate with him, stand in right relationship with him. Those who don't are alienated from him. As long as Saul stayed true to God, God was with him. But once Saul rebelled, God's relationship with him had to change.

When the Bible tells us that God relents or expresses regret, it is not saying that God made a mistake that he wishes he could have prevented. Rather, it is that he is grieved over a situation that necessitates a new course of action. Thankfully, this also works the other way. Saul's rebellious course typifies the state that we all as human beings find ourselves in, but a state in which we need not remain. Through turning from our rebellion and trusting in the Messiah Yeshua, we need not anticipate God's wrathful judgment. If we turn to him, he will relent. We can count on that!

TorahBytes: Particulars (Terumah)

And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst. Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle (Hebrew: mishkan), and of all its furniture, so you shall make it. (Shemot / Exodus 25:8,9; ESV)

Many people think that in the Old Covenant knowing God required keeping his rules, rules that no one could actually keep. They contrast this to their understanding of the New Covenant. Under this new system, they say, we can relate to God by grace, which, according to them, is based on God's unconditional love, meaning, because of what Yeshua did for us, then no matter what we do, God accepts us.

While there are smidgens of truth laced through this explanation, it actually misrepresents both Old and New Covenants. If under the Old Covenant, the only way to have a right relationship with God was to fully keep his rules, then no one had such a relationship, which is not the case. All the way through the Old Covenant writings, we find many people who truly knew God, imperfect though they were.

As for the New Covenant, the Messiah himself spoke of the narrow gate and hard way leading to life that few people find (see Matthew 7:14). Paul and the other New Covenant writers are clear that anyone who concludes that God's forgiveness through the Messiah implies that we can doing anything we like, has completely missed the point (See Romans 6 for example).

Our Torah portion describes the particulars of the mishkan (English: tabernacle). The mishkan was a tent-like portable structure that was to be the central place of sacrifice and worship for the people of Israel. It was a precursor to the permanent Temple that Solomon would build many years later. Many people who attempt to read through the Bible get bogged down when they get to passages such as this one, because they find the details uninteresting. It is understandable that people would find the narrative portions more gripping, but that doesn't make them more important. God is very particular when it comes to how we are to relate to him. He didn't tell Moses to make any old structure he wanted or that the people were free to sacrifice however they liked. Far from it! They were to follow God's directions very carefully. Every detail of the mishkan was designed to help the people know who God really was and what he was really like. Failure to stick to his particulars would lead the people to create a god of their own imaginations, instead of knowing the "I am" who revealed himself to Moses (see Shemot / Exodus 3:14).

While there are significant differences between the Old and New Covenants they both are clear in their insistence regarding the need to stick to God's particulars. The ultimate purpose of the mishkan was to prepare Israel for the coming of the Messiah. To then think we can relate to the Messiah any way we wish is to undermine the essence of biblical teaching about God and his ways. Using a metaphor of a vine and its branches, Yeshua said, "If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned" (John 15:6; ESV). In order to be in right relationship with God, it is absolutely necessary to abide in the Messiah. But how does one abide in him? Yeshua himself tells us when he said, "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love" (John 15:10; ESV).

What many don't seem to understand is that under both Old and New Covenants the only way to properly relate to God was through trusting in him. Right standing with God could never be accomplished by our own moral and spiritual uprightness. We all have fallen short of God's standards and deserve judgment. It is only by his grace that people at any time in human history could truly know him. At the same time what trusting in him entails and how to maintain a right relationship with him has always been based on his particulars, whether it be the mishkan and the sacrificial system under the Old Covenant or the Messiah under the New.

TorahBytes: Nevertheless (Mishpatim and Shekalim)

And Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all his days, because Jehoiada the priest instructed him. Nevertheless, the high places were not taken away; the people continued to sacrifice and make offerings on the high places. (2 Melachim / 2 Kings 12:2,3; ESV)

The books of Melachim (English: Kings) recount the happenings of the divided kingdom of Israel and Judah. Much of what we read centers around the life of the various kings. Our Haftarah recounts the reign of King Joash, also called Jehoash. As is common when the Scriptures introduce us to a king, we are told whether or not he did right in the sight of God. Very few of the approximately forty kings of Israel and Judah are classified as good to any extent, Joash being one of them. How this is described in our reading is interesting in that the writer provides us with this disclaimer of sorts: "Nevertheless, the high places were not taken away; the people continued to sacrifice and make offerings on the high places."

There were certain kings like Joash, who did what was right for the most part and yet tolerated this significant inappropriate aspect of the life of their nation. The people had been instructed by God to perform his prescribed rituals only at the location God determined. By this time, that place was the temple in Jerusalem. These other locations, called "high places", were sometimes used for pagan worship and other times for the worship of the true God. From the way the kings are assessed by the biblical writers, it sounds as if the issue of the "high places" was secondary, yet nevertheless important. Kings like Joash did what was good. Nevertheless, their reluctance to remove the "high places" to some extent undermined the good they were otherwise seeking to do.

We see by this that God seems to have some toleration for the inaccurate ways in which we relate to him. There are some aspects of inaccurate spirituality that he puts up with. Nevertheless, just because he tolerates them doesn't mean that we shouldn't address them.

Among our "high places" today are all sorts of traditional and cultural expressions of worship that have great importance to us, but were never sanctioned by God. He puts up with them, but, nevertheless, would prefer that we remove them. We preserve our "high places" to our own detriment. We may be technically doing what is right in the sight of God, yet at the same time, there hangs over us a significant "nevertheless." How much better off we would be if we no longer tolerate our "high places" and would not have to hear God say about us, "nevertheless".