All her ways are ways of pleasantness. And her paths are peace. She is a tree to those who lay hold of her: Those who hold her fast are called blessed.
The Sinai Ethic was originally presented by Rabbi Russ Resnik, executive director of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC), during the annual First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) Shavu’ot Conference at Beth Immanuel Sabbath Fellowship in Hudson, Wisconsin. Shavu’ot, the anniversary of the giving of the Torah and the pouring out of the Spirit, is a holy and deeply spiritual time that provides a reverent connection with the people of God who heard the words of the LORD spoken from the fire at Mount Sinai. These teachings, given in three sessions during the festival, focus on the moral and ethical mandates that the giving of the Torah established for the Jewish people and all nations.
-from the back cover of the CD for the audio teaching, “The Sinai Ethic”
Session One: On the Way to Sinai
I received this packet of two audio CDs containing the three sessions that make up Rabbi Resnik’s “The Sinai Ethic” presentation some time ago, but until now, I haven’t had the opportunity to listen to any of them, let alone write a review. So on a warm and pleasant Sunday afternoon, having completed the construction of my humble sukkah on my back patio, I set about to listen to the first of the three lectures.
I don’t know what I expected, but whatever it was, this wasn’t it.
Actually, it took me awhile to figure out what R. Resnik was getting to, that is, the actual topic and point of his presentation. I suppose it would have helped if I paid attention to the overall theme of this year’s FFOZ Shavuot conference, but since I didn’t attend, it really wasn’t on the forefront of my thoughts.
Rabbi Resnik started out with a familiar topic, the Shabbat. In Exodus 20, he states the commandment is to “remember the Shabbat”, but in Deuteronomy’s repeat of the Ten Commandments, it shifts to “observe the Shabbat”. Of course one must remember in order to keep and observe, or perhaps it’s the other way around. The point is that “remembering” isn’t a matter of holding an idea in your thoughts, but in re-enacting an event. It’s what Shavuot does when Jews are called up to the bema to read the Torah portions, just as the ancient Israelites went up to Mount Sinai to hear the Torah and receive it.
I want to make sure I insert this next part because it’s the cornerstone of Resnik’s talk. He quotes a Rabbi who lived sometime around 400 CE and who said (I’m paraphrasing):
All that is written in the Torah is for the sake of peace.
That’s a nice sentiment, but there is plenty recorded in the Torah that doesn’t sound very peaceful. The taking of the Land of Canaan, for example, was anything but peaceful. In fact, it was war.
Speaking of re-enacting…
Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.’
–Exodus 6:6-7 (NASB)
There are four promises in these verses that are re-enacted during the Passover seder with the four cups. God’s promises to take the children of Israel out of Egypt, free them from bondage, redeem Israel, and take them for His people as their God.
But there’s a fifth promise spoken of in verse eight:
I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the Lord.’”
God will fulfill the promise He made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the promise of the Land of Canaan, and give the Israelites possession of it.
There are two important things to remember here about the Israelites and the Land:
- The Promise of the Land
- Possession of the Land
In Genesis 12:1-3 and again in Genesis 15:1-16, we see God making this promise to Abraham and acting out its confirmation. This promise is totally without condition. Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob don’t have to do anything at all for this promise to be given to them, the promise that their descendants will one day possess the Land. Nothing can take this promise away.
But here’s where the “Sinai Ethic” comes in:
Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.
The promise is unconditional, but taking possession isn’t. The Israelites couldn’t take possession on a whim. Certainly Abraham couldn’t possess any part of the Land, even though technically, he held the deed. In fact, after Sarah dies, he must buy the cave of Machpelah and the surrounding field for a hefty price in order to bury his wife.
Abraham and his descendants received the promise of the Land, but they couldn’t take possession until the iniquity of the inhabitants in current possession reached a certain threshold that triggered God’s judgment upon them.
But that’s not the only condition. In fact, the entire giving of the Torah at Sinai was not only the list of conditions the Children of Israel had to obey to hold up their end of the covenant, it was the conditions for taking possession of the Land. And while the promise isn’t conditional, taking and keeping possession is.
What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
Resnik says the context of this verse has to do with the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, but the underlying principle has to do with promises and possession. The fact that God made the Sinai Covenant with Israel in no way made void or invalidated the promise He made with Abraham. A subsequent covenant or event never nullifies a previous covenant or a promise of God.
(As an aside, going back to the context of the above-quoted verse, I could interpret this, based on the principle, to mean that the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles in no way undermines or reverses God’s covenant promises to Israel, either the Sinai or the New Covenant, but that’s not what Resnik was driving at, so I digress)
Resnik applied this principle to our day-to-day lives as individual believers. The world doesn’t like committed religious believers and Resnik says some of that is our fault. We have become arrogant. We say we have the promises, and forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection, and at least some of us talk and walk around like we’re “too cool for school” (my words, not Resnik’s). The technical term in religious circles is “Triumphalism.”
Yes, the promises we have received as believers are true and they are real, but we haven’t taken possession of them yet. The resurrection has yet to come, just as Abraham had the promises but did not have possession. Like him, we need to learn to walk humbly before God and man, living out our faith day by day in obedience.
“Then it shall come about when the Lord your God brings you into the land which He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you eat and are satisfied, then watch yourself, that you do not forget the Lord who brought you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name.”
Taking and then keeping possession of the Land required obedience to God’s commandments. When the Israelites obeyed God, they lived well in the Land. When they didn’t, the promise of the Land was still intact, but typically the Israelites went into exile and (temporarily) lost possession of the Land. In some ways, the exile isn’t really over today because Messiah hasn’t returned, many Jews still live outside Israel, and national Israel has enmity with her neighbors (and probably the rest of the world).
Which brings us back to that Rabbinic quote about peace, the Torah, and the Sinai Ethic.
Resnik quoted a modern Orthodox Jewish scholar (I tried looking up what I thought his name was on Google but got nothing). As near as I was able to write it down, in part, this Orthodox scholar said he preaches “love of the Land with a high degree of non-violence.”
The gist of this scholar’s statement and Resnik’s agreement to it is that we shouldn’t be too caught up with political and military power for holding onto the modern state of Israel, particularly when it violates peace in the region and around the world. The Jewish people should be prepared to once again lose possession of the Land for the sake of upholding peace, because we know, as the Orthodox Jewish scholar knows, that when Messiah comes (returns), the Jewish people will get back possession of the Land based on the promises anyway.
That was a lot for me to swallow, but let me continue.
It’s not through politics or armies that the promises are fulfilled, but through returning to God in deep teshuvah and being obedient in all His ways. Resnik was careful to point out that we do indeed have a part to play in all this. He’s not advocating total pacifism and immediate surrender to Israel’s enemies, he apparently just wants to put everything in its proper context in that God is the one who will ultimately cause His promises to come to pass.
Remember, Messiah is called Sar Shalom, the Prince of Peace.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven…
To be “sons of God” in this case is to reflect the nature of God. Resnik explained to his listeners that Yeshua wasn’t preaching some pie-in-the-sky ideal, but how to live out practical life in that place and time. Israel was occupied by the brutal Roman empire, and yet the Master preached not only loving your neighbors, your fellow Jews, but even the harsh persecutors, those who pursue you, all for the sake of peace. Jesus wasn’t leading a revolution, even if his disciples and the common people who believed he was the Messiah wanted him to.
At the end of his first of three lectures, this is where Rabbi Resnik left us with the Sinai Ethic.
What Do I Think?
Like I said above, this was totally unexpected. I thought there would be some other focus (though I didn’t imagine what it would be) than the juxtaposition of possession of the Land of Israel by the Jewish people, and the potential for losing possession, all for the sake of the higher value of peace.
One thing I do know is that Messiah will return as a conquering King in the spirit of David, not a “meek and mild lamb”. During his first appearance as the “Word made flesh,” he didn’t put up a fight, even for his own life, but indeed, was led to the slaughter, so to speak, all for the sake of bringing atonement, not only to the Jewish people, but to the world.
That’s not how he’s going to come back.
Of course, since he’s not here yet, Resnik may have a point, but Israel has been through too many wars and won most of them against all odds (and I believe through the providence of God) for me to believe that current Jewish possession of the Land is entirely by human effort. I believe God is already playing a part, a big one, in Jewish people living in Israel today.
I’m not Jewish and I’ve never even been to Israel, but something just sticks in my throat when I even think about the Jews, under any circumstances, rolling over and giving the Land to Abbas and his cronies. “Peace” in the Arab world is something of an illusion. When the Arabs don’t have Jews to fight, they fight each other. I know that probably sounds racist, but that’s the history of the Arab peoples across the long centuries. In fact, Dennis Prager late last month, published an article which highlights my point called What the Arab World Produces.
But since “The Sinai Ethic” is made up of all three sessions, with this being just the first one, I could be jumping to a hasty conclusion. Ecclesiastes 3:8 says there’s a time for war and a time for peace. God has commanded war for the sake of His people Israel on numerous occasions. The ancient Israelites took the Land originally by force of arms at the command of Hashem, Master of Heaven’s Armies, so it’s not like the Torah only teaches peace and self-sacrifice. Yes, it does teach those things, but as a former instructor of mine once said, “Once in action, watch the timing.”
I’ll listen to and review the second of the three sessions by the by which should add some dimension to what “the Sinai Ethic” means.
10 thoughts on “A Review of the Sinai Ethic: On the Way to Sinai”
Peace, to a tyrant, means absence of opposition.
Just to be clear Steve, are you identifying any individual as a tyrant?
No. Well maybe Putin, Abbas et al.
Israel’s reliance on its territory and military for security will continue to be tested, increasingly so as we get nearer to the return of Jesus.
It will be tested to the point of failure, with all nations gathered against them (and Israel has to be in the land for this to happen). All hope will seem to be lost and in desperation God will be recognised as the only hope for Israel’s salvation from its enemies, and they will cry out to Him. He will answer, and He will deliver them through the return of Messiah who will destroy the armies of the nations gathered against Israel.
Israel’s situation, being on the brink of destruction, will not only make Israel turn to God when they acknowledge the futility of all other alternatives – God will use that situation as a judgement on the nations who have gathered against Israel.
I hate to do this to you (again), “O”, but I must ask you again to consider a shift in perspective based on my first-hand knowledge of facts “on the ground”, as the common military expression has it. Israel does not rely on “its territory and military” for security as if they were somehow an alternative to reliance on HaShem. I am continually hearing soldiers and their commanders express gratitude to HaShem for what often appear as miraculous and serendipitous events that prevent some disaster or other. There is already no lack of Israelis crying out to Him, though I admit that the percentages could be higher and they tend to become more so whenever the attacks against us become hotter. HaShem uses Israel’s people in the process of His defense of us. The fact that most of us go through military training and reserve service, and at any given time a number of us are armed as a standing military force, only provides tools through whom He may perform mighty deeds (to express it in ancient terms). And if we cannot demand to use and to hold the territory HaShem has granted us for our defense, how can we claim to honor His Word? Just as it was in the days when we first entered the land of His promise, we are aware that He has required us to fight for it.
As for all the nations being gathered against us, have you paid any attention at all to what goes on in the U.N.? If it weren’t so horrifying, it would be humorously silly, but more often than not one is quite justified to ask: “Why are the [United] Nations in an uproar, and why do their peoples mutter nonsense … against HaShem and His chosen [nation]”? This question is ever so slightly paraphrased from Ps.2:1-2, but it is not at all at odds with the Hebrew text, even though some would prefer to focus on its reference to a single anointed king figure rather than a more generalized reference to the people whom HaShem has “anointed” or “chosen”. It is not just the massing of armed forces on Israel’s borders that constitutes the notion of nations gathered against us. You really couldn’t fit armies gathered from “all nations” on our relatively short borders, although United Nations forces offer the opportunity for a suitably sized multinational force to do so. They have already done so on the Lebanese and Syrian borders, and somewhat on southern borders, though they are not officially arrayed “against” Israel yet except as unsympathetic observers.
Can you identify any period since Israel’s modern re-constitution when we have not been “on the brink of destruction”? Of course, there are better and worse times from the perspective of lost hope. But virtually all that you were projecting for the future is already happening relative to Israel, except for the actual return of the Messiah to engage more effectively in battle and ultimate victory. Before that happens, the prophecies do not necessarily include testing of the Israeli military to the point of complete failure and all loss of hope, though undoubtedly some will express despair in such terms.
There is a particularly troubling prophecy in Zech.5, concerning a flying scroll that is a curse going out over the whole land, and a reference to lifting a lead cover to reveal inside an ephah-sized measuring basket something that is associated with “wickedness” and is spelled in Hebrew with an aleph, a shin, and a hey. Usually this word is translated as “ishah” meaning woman; but it can also be rendered as “eshah” which is a kind of sacrificial fire offering or simply the fire that consumes it. Now, when I think in terms of modern weapons that might contain some sort of fire under a lead cover and mounted in a flying scroll I’m tempted to think of a nuclear missile, particularly if I also place it in the context of Zech.14:12 which describes a “plague” that causes flesh to be consumed while the victim is still standing, and while his eyes melt away in their sockets and his tongue likewise in his mouth. There are some chemical weapons which can do that, but the lead reference suggests to me atomic shielding. Further, the reference in Zech.13 about two thirds of the land being cut-off and perishing suggests a very real possibility of WMD. Even more disconcerting to me is the reference at the end of Zech.5 to the land of Shinar which is Iran. It seems all-too-likely that Iran will, at some time not too far off, acquire nuclear weapons capability and deploy them against Israel. Hence I support very strongly Netanyahu’s emphasis that Iran’s nuclear program must be inhibited insofar as possible.
It does appear that things will be permitted to get rather nasty before the Messiah is permitted to destroy all the wickedness (which will probably appear at first to be even more unpleasant) before clean-up and reparations can begin. But remember that the Messiah will not be waving any magic wand to resolve these problems. Those who are raptured to join with the holy ones he brings with him upon his return may expect to do some serious fighting “as a judgment on the nations who have gathered against Israel”. Some of those then fighting for Messiah will already have been modern Israeli commanders and commandos. Some of those currently fighting for Messiah already are.
While individuals may place their trust in God, Israel is currently a secular nation and I have no problem with Israel protecting itself militarily; and the fact that despite the overwhelming odds Israel has defeated the enemies that have attacked the nation since it was established, is a clear sign of God’s involvement and protection. But to what extent does Israel (as a whole) recognise God’s involvement and how many put the victory down to their military resources?
You give the reference to “Zech 13 about two thirds of the land being cut-off and perishing” – surely THAT is far greater than anything Israel has experienced in the land in modern times? And where will confidence in the military be at that time?
Surely that will be a sign that military force (as effective as it may have been in the past) doesn’t offer lasting security. Where else can the surviving third put their hope and trust?
What happens afterwards according to the rest of Zechariah 13?
Note, in my commnet abovbe I tried to highlight the following phrase (but the bold print clearly didn’t work in the quote). I’m typing it again below to make sure the significance isn’t overlooked.
They will call on my name
and I will answer them.
As I tried to point out, we in Israel are already calling upon the name of HaShem and He is already answering, even among supposedly secular folks, though I would never argue that we couldn’t improve our percentages of those who do so (and no doubt we will, in view of these verses). The notion of not being overconfident about military effectiveness has never been lost upon our people. It was noted as far back as Ps.33:17 (and it never hurts to review its meaning yet again). My point is that military prowess and trusting in HaShem’s deliverance is not either/or, but both/and — though large segments of the ultra-orthodox contingent eschew military service altogether, supposedly in favor of the effectiveness of prayer alone. I think you might be surprised to what extent Israel in the aggregate does recognize and acknowledge HaShem’s involvement — at least to the degree as reflected in the WW2-vintage saying that there are no atheists in foxholes.
I cited the passages in Zecharyah precisely to illustrate reasons for concern about threats still ahead of us — and maybe already too close for comfort. My point is that it will not be a new phenomenon to call upon HaShem and be answered by Him when these extremely severe refining trials will come. HaShem is not saying: “I will bring this severe trial upon them AND ONLY THEN will they (finally!) call upon Me”. The text is saying matter-of-factly that both the testing and the calling (and the answering) will occur. One might emphasize that we will still be calling on HaShem despite the temptation after severe trials to give up because of feeling abandoned by Him. Certainly this was the case for many Jews after the Holocaust destroyed more than one-third of the Jews in the entire world, and more than two-thirds of the total within Europe, North Africa, and the near mid-east.
PL, is it genuine faith in God that only calls upon him from a “foxhole” – and then ignores Him again after the threat has gone?
Who gets the praise and who is acknowledged and given credit after a victory? Not by a few but by ALL. What kind of NATIONAL celebrations giving thanks ONLY to God have there been after each victory?
Two things to keep in mind, “O”: One is that the “foxhole” in question is the entire tiny nation of Israel, so all Israelis are in the same beleaguered situation from which to call upon HaShem. And who said anything about ignoring Him afterward? Where did you get such an accusation? I’m trying to tell you how gratifying I find it that I see faith within the Israeli people, even those who are not outwardly “religious”.
The second consideration to keep in mind is that Jews have virtually never been entirely of the same opinion or viewpoint about anything, hence the saying that “where there are two Jews there are three opinions”. In fact, Talmud elaborates that as three Jews and six opinions, because each one reserves the right to change his mind. It’s a reflection of our dedication to learning and deliberated investigation into the implications of HaShem’s Torah instructions. It’s also the reason why we are continually arguing and challenging assumptions and generally iconoclastic (i.e., “idol wreckers”). It is a mistake to expect all or nothing. And it would be a mistake ever to expect a national celebration that did not acknowledge HaShem’s work through the Israeli people when victory is clearly the result of both in cooperation. When HaShem does unique things like destroy all the Egyptian firstborn or part the Yam-Suf sea, then the celebrations rejoice in His outstretched Hand of power alone. But when He gives victory to the armies of Israel the celebrations must acknowledge the entirety of the event. And even then there will be different viewpoints about it and the details of how HaShem accomplished it.
So you’re as welcome to your viewpoint as anyone in Israel, but when it comes to unanimity of viewpoint in Israel, maybe you shouldn’t be expecting miracles. The fact that HaShem accomplishes with us as much as He does is perhaps already miracle enough. [:)]