|Maggid ben Yoseif / Jerusalem Torah Voice in Exile|
Halachah may be argued with precedent. Son of God, as the New Testament says Y'shua will be "called" is not a unique title. The entire Assimilation of the Northern Tribes will one day be called by the name, b'nei El chai (sons of the living God). To be "called" the "son" of the One, cannot imply Deity less the Torah is violated, so, to be valid, the son must satisfy some Halachic role of the father unique to the son, or have strong Torah precedent, which can be argued according to Halachah.
Since Y'shua's mission is understood by his followers in the context of a renewal of covenant, the same must be true of this Halachah or precedent. Covenant renewal to be a valid Halachic argument must then relate somehow to his sonship. Halachah forbids a father and son to have relations with the same woman. The followers of Y'shua are called his bride in the New Testament.
Biblically and historically, the Northern Tribes were kiddushin (betrothed) to the God of Israel, who divorced this branch of Israel because they were unfaithful to the Torah, the wedding contract to which they vowed at Sinai. Halachah forbids a betrothed husband from consummating a marriage with a betrothed woman who is unfaithful after their betrothal. But there is no law in Halachah forbidding the son of such a betrothed husband from marrying this woman, so long as the marriage to the father was never nissuin (consummated). The language at Sinai reflects only kiddushin, not nissuin. Further, the marriage of Judah and Tamar reflects such a precedent with Judah, the father, marrying the woman betrothed to his son.
Removing the michshol (stumbling block) between Joseph and Judah
© 2005 Maggid ben Yosef
Disputation Series VIII:
The same high priest, Caiaphas, who asked Y'shua whether he was the "anointed son of God" earlier stated it was fakach* (Aramaic "proper and expedient") for one man to die for the people," (John 18:14).
The Gospel accounts do not agree on Y'shua's response to that question. Only Mark records Y'shua as answering, "I am." But then his account also quotes Y'shua as clarifying his anointing as the "son of man," instead. Son of man is a name associated with the suffering tzadik* in the entire book of Ezekiel and in Daniel. In fact, in each of the four Gospel accounts, Y'shua is called "son of God" initially by demons and unclean spirits, who he charges to keep quiet.
The dream of Pilate's wife and the Centurion
The wife of the Roman procurator, Pilate, has a dream after which she warns her husband to have nothing to do with prosecuting this tzadika (Aramaic for tzadik). Similarly, the Centurion who stands guard at the cross declares Y'shua a tzadika or "righteous man."
Isaiah 53:5 states the suffering of a tzadik and its purpose:
"Though he was wounded through our pesha* (transgressions), bruised through our iniquities, yet the musar shlomeinu* (bond of our peace) is upon him and in his fellowship, we shall heal ourselves."
Atonement for pesha
The suffering of a tzadik atones for pesha (willful, intentional sins). Not even the Torah spells out atonement for pesha. Rather, this category of sin is only mitigated on Yom Kippur into a lesser sin first through confessing it during the Ten Days God abandons His seat of Judgment in favor of His seat of Mercy. Second, the guilty parties must make amends with those who they have intentionally disparaged or slighted. Then, the pesha mitigated into lower categories of sin, may be atoned. The musar shloma ties the suffering of the tzadik to the violation of some kind of agreement between God and His people.
While Y'shua never openly proclaims himself to be the "son of God," for Halachic reasons we will explain below, it is necessary for him to be "called" by that title. Even in the Gospel of John, where he "acknowledges" this identity, he is quoted in the next breath as clarifying that his anointing relates to the identify, "son of man." The declaration at his birth that he should be "called" the son of God seems significant more because of his mission than his identity. Further, the entire Assimilation of the Northern Tribes at or shortly before their Return, will one day be called by the name, b'nei El chai* (sons of the living God). To be "called" the "son" of the One, cannot in any case, imply Deity or we would have a contradiction of the p'shat of the revelation at Sinai as earlier discussed.
What did the high priest know?
The high priest knew beforehand that it was "expedient" for one who would be called the "son of God" to die on behalf of the people. We must not assume that this was limited to political expediency to somehow appease Rome. It would have been more fitting for Y'shua to have typified the scapegoat delivered in the Wilderness to appease Rome-Esau at Yom Kippur if that were the case. Rather, the timing of his death was at Passover shortly after a Seder* in which he reinstituted a covenant between God and those to whom he was sent -- the Assimilation of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Plugging those facts into a spiritual equation, Y'shua's suffering as a tzadik must somehow make a way for the Assimilation of Israel to be renewed to covenant with God. Further, he must do this as the "son of God." This raises all manner of questions about the covenant between God and Israel and the unique relationship of "fathers and sons" in Halachah. In a non-Deity context, one called the "son" must satisfy some Halachic role of the "father" unique to the "son."
Renewed not 'new' covenant
Y'shua's mission is understood by his followers in the context of a brit ha-chadashah*, properly a "renewed, restored or repaired covenant," -- NOT a "new" covenant. His title as "son of God" must have some relationship, therefore, in satisfying the Halachah pertaining to this covenant renewal. Or, stated another way, this covenant renewal, to be a valid Halachic argument, must relate to his "sonship."
Halachah forbids a father and son to have relations with the same woman. Halachah also forbids a betrothed husband from consummating a marriage with his betrothed wife, who is unfaithful to him. In that event, Halachah decrees that the husband give his unfaithful "wife" a sefer critut*, a get or divorce.
Yizra'el, Lo-ruhamah, Lo-ami
The Northern Kingdom, called the House of Israel, and the Southern Kingdom, called the House of Judah, both were betrothed to God at Sinai. However, the Northern Kingdom played the harlot in God's eyes by "counting the Torah a strange thing." Three judgments were therefore decreed of the Assimilation of the Northern Tribes, which did not apply to the Southern Kingdom. (See Hosea 1:7). God sent the Northern Kingdom into exile with the judgments, Yizrael, (Jezreel), Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ami*, as recorded in Hosea 1.
The prophecies about Y'shua before his birth and at his infancy as recorded in Luke 1:50-55; 68-73 and 77-79, state that Y'shua's mission -- which means his suffering as a tzadik -- pertains to the rectification of these very judgments! The Aramaic Peshita* text refers to the same three buzzwords in these pivotal prophesies that relate Y'shua's mission to the Assimilation and provide the historical/biblical continuity between the covenant at Sinai and the covenant renewed by Y'shua.
'I will take you to me for a people'
Even the cup of covenant raised by Y'shua at his last Passover Seder is drank in remembrance of "I will take you to me for a people and I will be a God to you." (Exodus 6:7). This is also a rectification of Lo-Ami, (Not My People). The followers of Y'shua are called the "bride of the anointed" in the reNewed Testament. Biblically and historically, the Northern Tribes were kiddushin* (betrothed) to God, but there is no language in the Torah or at Sinai that reflects a nissuim* (consummation) of the relationship between God and either Israel or Judah. This means, that if God observes the same terms of Halachah which He sets before Israel, that God would not be permitted to receive the Northern Tribes as His "bride." Since Judah was never given this get, to this day, the House of Judah remains in covenant with God via the covenant at Sinai confirmed with the everlasting mercies promised to Judah through the obedience of King David.
A unique Halachic status
So how can the seed of unfaithful Israel be returned to God's covenant? A tzadik must suffer on their behalf. But this tzadik also must have a unique Halachic status -- he must be "called," the "son of God." While Halachah would forbid God Himself from receiving Israel again to Him, one who would be called "His son" could become the bridegroom of Assimilated Israel since God never consummated the relationship with Israel. And the precedent by which we could argue this Halachah is the marriage between Judah and Tamar, which records an instance where the father, Judah, consummated the marriage with the woman promised to his son, Shelah. This was possible only because Shelah had never consummated this marriage with Tamar.
Note: Ordinarily, we do not copyright our writings. The Disputation text may be disseminated with permission via email from the author. They must be disseminated in their entirety with no editing or changes permitted. This is being done to ensure that this highly controversial material is not taken out of context.