The Torah relates the story of the six days of creation in order to refute other theories that claim that the universe came into being through some cosmic accident or coincidence. As such, the story of creation speaks only in general terms to illustrate that nothing came into being except at G-d's command. The Hebrew word, bara, emphasizes this. The word bara, used here for “create,” grammatically can only be used in connection to G-d (never for humans), and alludes to the creation of something from nothing.

The Torah's narrative of creation is meant to directly establish G-d as the sovereign of the universe. Unlike other creation accounts circulating around the Ancient Near East, the Biblical account makes no attempt to explain the origins of G-d, or try to persuade the listener of G-d's existence. The existence of God is an axiomatic fact. Therefore it immediately jumps to the explanation of G-d's creation of heaven and earth.

In verse three, G-d says “'Let there be light': and there was light.” If the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day of creation (see 1:14-19), what is the “light” that is being spoken of here?

Interestingly there are two answers:

A medieval rabbinic anthology commenting on this verse states:

The pre-existence of Messiah, and his presence at creation has been discussed widely among many Jewish writers throughout history. According to Midrash HaGadol, “The final goal of humanity is to attain the state of the days of Mashiach; therefore the name of Mashiach had to be formulated even before the world's inception (Midrash HaGadol, 1:1).”

According to the Talmud:

The light, which the rabbis speak of as alluding to the Messiah, is also a representation of the “Ein Sof,” the hidden aspect of G-d. Midrashic legend teaches that this light is hidden until the time of the Messianic Age, after which it will be once more revealed. When this happens, it will be like in Revelation (Rev. 21:22-23, 22:5, etc.), where there will no longer be any need of the sun, for G-d's “Ein Sof,” His presence, will provide all needed light.

The entire New Testament echoes this thought as well. However, no where is the Messiah more clearly connected to the themes of light and creation than in the book of John:

“In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.

He was with G-d in the beginning.

All things came to be through him,

and without him nothing made had being.

In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.

The light shines in the darkness,

and the darkness has not suppressed it

…The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,

and we saw his Sh’khinah,

the Sh’khinah of the father’s only Son,

full of grace and truth.”

John 1:1-5, 14

May our divine Messiah, Yeshua, who was present at creation, continue to work in each of our lives to dispel the darkness, and make each of us into a new creation!

Parashat Shemot

As Moshe was attending his father-in-law’s sheep in the wilderness, near the base of Mt. Sinai, the Torah tells us that an angel appeared to him in the form of burning bush (3:2). As Moshe approached the bush to discover why it was burning, and yet not being consumed, HaShem called out to Moshe from the bush (3:4).

This encounter between Moshe and G-d is one of the most exciting stories in the entire Torah, and is rich with so much meaning and imagery. HaShem instructs Moshe to return to Egypt to deliver a message and liberate the Jewish people from slavery. During their encounter, Moshe asks G-d what he is to tell the people when they ask who sent him, and what G-d's name is. And HaShem responds with one of the most amazing, mysterious, and mystical answers ever recorded – “Ehiye Asher Ehiye.”

This phrase, “Ehiye Asher Ehiye,” is one of the easiest, and yet most difficult passages of the Torah to translate. The reason is because it carries nuance, mystery, and an ever present reality. Many translations render the passage in the present tense, either as “I AM,” or “I AM Who I AM.” Many Jewish translations translate it in the future tense, “I Will Be Who I Will Be.” The Complete Jewish Bible renders it as both “I am/will be what I am/will be.”

The most fascinating thing is that they are all correct. In Hebrew, the way this phrase is constructed renders it timeless and eternal. In Jewish mystical understanding, the phrase “Ehiye Asher Ehiye” can actually be translated in every tense, and in every combination of tenses. It could be “I am who I am,” “I will be who I will be,” “I was who I was,” “I am who I will be,” “I will be who I was,” etc.

My point in offering some various possible renditions of this phrase is not to place one particular rendering over another as a “more correct” translation, but rather to emphasize the point that all English translations struggle to convey the depth of the phrase.

The Midrash acknowledges this and also denotes that the word ehiye describes G-d as timeless and eternal. The Aramaic Targum Onkelos alludes that this phrase is itself one of the divine names, for he does not even translate the three words into an Aramaic meaning, but leaves the phrase in Hebrew.

The response G-d gives to Moshe is itself one of the divine oracles meant to be a sign to the people. But this is often missed by non-Hebrew speakers. By G-d’s response, He is telling Moshe that He is in control of everything. That all is consumed in, by, through, and from Him. An answer that is just as deep and mysterious as G-d is. Yet, it is close and simple at the same time.

When we get into positions like Moshe, and feel overwhelmed, and that we can not possibly do all that G-d asks of us, we must remember that our G-d is not only a consuming fire, but is the source of everything that exists. And that nothing has being apart from Him. We must always be reminded of the assurance that through HaShem, we can do all things.

The idea of a preexistent Messiah is not unknown to Judaism. In fact, I lightly touched on this idea in my previous blog post on Breishit, where I additionally connected this idea to Creation, and further to John, chapter 1.

The book of John is traditionally attributed to the apostle John, one of the original twelve shlichim of Yeshua, and believed to be written between 60-100 CE. Many scholars believe that one of the main emphases of the book is to defend Yeshua’s deity. Rather than a history of Yeshua, it is primarily a profound study of who Yeshua is. It is deeply mystical, and filled with rich spirituality and symbolism.

When reading the beginning of John, one should be immediately hit by the imagery of Creation. This is no accident, for there is a direct and purposeful connection between Genesis 1 and John 1. John purposefully uses words and imagery from the Creation Account to equate the G-d of Creation with Yeshua. For John, since Yeshua was at the Beginning (John 1:1), and only G-d was existent at Creation (Genesis 1:1) John is contending they are one and the same! John wants the message to be bold and clear – Yeshua the Messiah is the God of Creation.

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.

He was with G-d in the beginning.

All things came to be through him,

and without him nothing made had being.

In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.

The light shines in the darkness,

and the darkness has not suppressed it

…The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,

and we saw his Sh’khinah,

the Sh’khinah of the father’s only Son,

full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-5, 14)

For those steeped in Jewish thought, the Jewish context of John is clear. John is writing with Genesis in mind. As such, for many of us, the idea of the Torah made flesh – that Yeshua himself is the Torah incarnate – is not a problem.

However, the question may still arise as to the idea of incarnation within a modern Jewish context. One can argue that maybe during the Second Temple period there may have been a few Jews that believed in a divine Messiah, and in some sort of concept of incarnation. But is there a more recent parallel in Jewish texts?

The answer is yes! Around 1797, the Alter Rebbe, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (the founder of Chabad Chassidus) composed the Tanya – which quickly became one of the primary texts of the Chassidic movement. In a particular passage of the Tanya, the Alter Rebbe explores an idea of the Torah and HaShem being one and the same. According to the Tanya, the Torah itself is a physical incarnation of G-d.

Although this is not an exact parallel to John 1, what it does help us understand is that the idea of incarnation and specifically the idea of “Torah made flesh” are Jewish. The Alter Rebbe spends an entire chapter in the Tanya describing this mystical relationship between HaShem and the Torah.

Can Ascension to Heaven happen physically or only in a vision? And does the New Testament serve as a link between earlier biblical thought on Heavenly Ascent and later rabbinic and mystical thought?

This idea was originally introduced and raised by the experiences of Enoch and Elijah, who were both described as having been taken to heaven (see Gen. 5:24, and 2 Kings 2:1-11).

1 Enoch

Yet the idea of heavenly ascent takes on a whole new meaning with the introduction of the Book of Watchers, as preserved in 1 Enoch:

This account draws heavily upon the prophetic accounts of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel and others (esp. the famous merkavah account in Ezek. 1) in which the throne room of G-d is described in detail.

What makes Enoch’s experience unique is that he is described as having ascended to heaven to experience the celestial throne room and the manifest presence of G-d. The continuity with the earlier prophets is that his ascension is still described as having taken place in a vision: “And it was shown to me thus in a vision.”

2 Corinthians

This is not all that different from an experience described by Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:

Paul describes his experience of ascending into paradise and having witnessed things that are impossible/unlawful to recount. Although we do not have the throne room vision in Paul’s account as we do in Enoch, the connection of ascension to heaven is clear.

However, Paul notes something that sets his experience apart from Enoch’s in that he specifically mentions he cannot explain whether his ascension was strictly in a vision, or whether it actually took place bodily. Enoch’s experience was clearly a vision, because he says so.

It seems to me that this reference, in connection with other citations of bodily translation preserved in the New Testament (for example, Phillip’s being snatched away after his encounter with an Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:39), highlights another transition in Jewish Ascension thought – that heavenly ascent could happen bodily or within a vision. Paul’s mention of the possibility that it could have taken place bodily did not discredit his account.

Due to the fact that there seems to be some type of a transition in ascension thought to include the possibility of the event taking place bodily, Paul’s account could well indeed serve as a link between older Jewish ascension texts (like 1 Enoch), and stories preserved in rabbinical sources (like the Four Rabbis Who Entered Pardes), and the later Merkavah and Heikhalot mystical texts.