A pastor friend of mine recently sent me an article about the great celebration that occurs in Jerusalem on Simchat Torah and a thought came to me while reading the article.
The author referred to it as a Jewish Festival, which is what most Christian commentators do. He also points out that the Simchat Torah celebration and most of the other "Jewish" celebrations come from well over a thousand years after Jesus. So why have these become "Jewish" instead of biblical celebrations? Because only the Jews have chosen to celebrate them!
These are celebrations of the biblical feast days that our LORD gave us by which to remember him. Yet, the church has chosen to replace them with celebrations whose origins do not even come from His holy word. The Jews claim that they are the chosen people because they are the only ones that answered the call at Sinai. While Christians would argue that point, nearly two thousand years after our Messiah's death and resurrection, we still do not answer this call.
I say this not to church bash, but to point out something. When I read articles about the joyous celebrations that the Jews have during the biblical feast days, it is clear that the church has missed out. Growing up in the church, I always looked forward to the Christmas and Easter celebrations because they were the special days of the year in our church. But looking back, I do not remember a single Christmas or Easter that came close to the celebrations I see for Passover, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Shavuot, Tabernacles or Simchat Torah. What a great loss we have suffered in the church!
A recent disagreement in the Messianic Jewish movement has really brought this to light for me. The disagreement is whether a gentile is required to keep the commands (including the feast days) or simply has a divine invitation to keep them. In other words: Is it a "get to" or a "have to"? When I look at the joyous results of the "have to", it makes me ask:
What's the difference?
Shalom,
Jeff
Monday, October 12, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Motives of Judas
It is usually assumed that Judas had a personal, self-serving motive for his actions. Most theologians state that it was his love of money that dictated his actions. And it is just a short jump from that plot line to that of the so-called "Gospel of Judas" that paints Judas as a co-conspirator with Yeshua/Jesus to make Yeshua a martyr.
But what if Judas had bigger motives? One of the big debates has often been what Iscariot means. I lean towards the Sicarii definition. There are a couple of reasons for this.
First, a fact often overlooked or unknown by Christian commentators is that during the time of Yeshua another Jewish messianic movement, called the Sicarii, fought in Judea against imperial Rome. This militaristic movement interpreted –- quite logically -- that the same prophecies that the Gospels claim envisioned Yeshua, actually predicted the coming of a warrior Messiah who would lead the Jews against Rome. (see note below)
The Sicarri are often linked with the Zealots as either a subset or parallel thinking group. We know that Yeshua had at least one Zealot as a disciple, Simon the Zealot. Some have even suggested that Simon and Judas were father and son, not a terrible stretch since John always refers to him as Judas, son of Simon. Therefore Judas being a Sicarii is not too remote a possibility.
Under their cloaks, the Sicarri concealed "sicæ," or small daggers, which is where they got their name. They believed that the Messiah would one day appear to lead the Jews against their oppressors, the Romans. They also believed that the Messiah would not come while there were still priests present. So, part of their actions as "dagger-men" was to kill the priests so that the Messiah would appear. Josephus gives at least one account of their killing a priest.
If Judas was a Sicarii and he expected the Messiah to be militant in his leadership, then his actions could be his way of removing another obstacle, or more logically, his way of prodding Yeshua to start his "campaign". After all, for someone who expected the Messiah to lead his people, Yeshua' teaching approach was not the style he wanted to see.
The question to ask is if Judas was only betraying Yeshua, then why would he feel remorse? Surely he would have known that the arrest would probably lead to death. However, if he truly thought that Yeshua was the Messiah that could lead the Jews against Rome, then he might feel remorse when he realized that he was the Messiah sent to suffer.
It seems likely that a Judas who was looking for a Messiah ben David, but found a Messiah ben Joseph, would feel remorse more than a Judas who sold out his rabbi for money. When you put Judas’s action into the context of the times that he lived and the expectations that the Zealots had, it changes the lesson that we should learn. And since Yeshua’ entire walk was his attempt to teach us, we should be asking ourselves what he wanted us to learn by his choosing Judas as a disciple.
The quote about the Sicarii above came from a site called Sikh Spectrum. The article was written to show that Christianity was a myth. The author’s view was that since there was already a messianic movement at the time of Yeshua, Christianity must have just been a take off of it. What the author fails to recognize was that many of the different Jewish groups were expecting a messiah to lead them over Rome. The Essenes, Pharisees and the Zealots all taught about a Davidic style messiah. Therefore Christianity, which has its roots these same Jewish groups, would be expected to have a similar messiah story.
But what if Judas had bigger motives? One of the big debates has often been what Iscariot means. I lean towards the Sicarii definition. There are a couple of reasons for this.
First, a fact often overlooked or unknown by Christian commentators is that during the time of Yeshua another Jewish messianic movement, called the Sicarii, fought in Judea against imperial Rome. This militaristic movement interpreted –- quite logically -- that the same prophecies that the Gospels claim envisioned Yeshua, actually predicted the coming of a warrior Messiah who would lead the Jews against Rome. (see note below)
The Sicarri are often linked with the Zealots as either a subset or parallel thinking group. We know that Yeshua had at least one Zealot as a disciple, Simon the Zealot. Some have even suggested that Simon and Judas were father and son, not a terrible stretch since John always refers to him as Judas, son of Simon. Therefore Judas being a Sicarii is not too remote a possibility.
Under their cloaks, the Sicarri concealed "sicæ," or small daggers, which is where they got their name. They believed that the Messiah would one day appear to lead the Jews against their oppressors, the Romans. They also believed that the Messiah would not come while there were still priests present. So, part of their actions as "dagger-men" was to kill the priests so that the Messiah would appear. Josephus gives at least one account of their killing a priest.
If Judas was a Sicarii and he expected the Messiah to be militant in his leadership, then his actions could be his way of removing another obstacle, or more logically, his way of prodding Yeshua to start his "campaign". After all, for someone who expected the Messiah to lead his people, Yeshua' teaching approach was not the style he wanted to see.
The question to ask is if Judas was only betraying Yeshua, then why would he feel remorse? Surely he would have known that the arrest would probably lead to death. However, if he truly thought that Yeshua was the Messiah that could lead the Jews against Rome, then he might feel remorse when he realized that he was the Messiah sent to suffer.
It seems likely that a Judas who was looking for a Messiah ben David, but found a Messiah ben Joseph, would feel remorse more than a Judas who sold out his rabbi for money. When you put Judas’s action into the context of the times that he lived and the expectations that the Zealots had, it changes the lesson that we should learn. And since Yeshua’ entire walk was his attempt to teach us, we should be asking ourselves what he wanted us to learn by his choosing Judas as a disciple.
The quote about the Sicarii above came from a site called Sikh Spectrum. The article was written to show that Christianity was a myth. The author’s view was that since there was already a messianic movement at the time of Yeshua, Christianity must have just been a take off of it. What the author fails to recognize was that many of the different Jewish groups were expecting a messiah to lead them over Rome. The Essenes, Pharisees and the Zealots all taught about a Davidic style messiah. Therefore Christianity, which has its roots these same Jewish groups, would be expected to have a similar messiah story.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Acts 15 and the Three Cardinal Sins
I struggled for years with the various interpretations of the four commands given by James to the gentile believers in Acts 15. The main thing I struggled with was the “blood and things strangled”. The traditional teachings that it referred to kosher or to pagan practices never seemed to fit with the other two, Idolatry and Fornication.
Then one day I was reading some excerpts from the Talmud and I ran across the statement that the sages taught that since the First Temple was destroyed due to rampant acts of murder, idolatry, and sexual immorality, there were three things you could not do even under pain of death: Idolatry, Fornication and …Murder. As fast as my mind races, I was already excited before I got to the third one. Only to be disappointed that it said murder instead of blood and things strangled. It was so close that I looked up the word for blood and discovered that the Greek word aima can mean blood as in the liquid or bloodshed as in to murder! I have included the Thayer’s definition only because it is easier to read, but the Strong’s definition is the same.
G129
αἷμα
aima
Thayer Definition:
1) blood
1a) of man or animals
1b) refers to the seat of life
1c) of those things that resemble blood, grape juice
2) bloodshed, to be shed by violence, slay, murder
Here is the Sanhedrin 74a link:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_74.html#PARTb#PARTb
So now I had the three “Cardinal Sins” that the rabbis talked about. However, that still did not deal with the “things strangled” part. My assumption was that because you could kill someone without causing bloodshed, that maybe someone added “things strangled” to it to close the loophole. Ie bloodshed and strangling equals murder. This is arguable since the Greek word for strangled, pniktos, appears nowhere else in the bible.
So even though I was fairly confident that the original edict was for Idolatry, Fornication and Murder, I still had no proof. That was until I discovered the Western Version of Acts. If you are not familiar with the Western Version of Acts, it is an ancient manuscript dating back to the fourth century of the first 22 chapters of Acts that is different from the commonly used version called the Antiochian Version. Most scholars assume that the Antiochian Version is the original because there are older copies of it and because the Western Version is longer. However, believing that “because there are more copies makes it the original” is equivalent to saying the "world was flat" because they all believed it to be. Here are the links to the English translation and to an article for you to read:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/acts_long_02_text.htm Link to English translation
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/acts_long_01_intro.htm Link to article by translator
These are the specific verses I want to show you:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles turn to God: but that we enjoin on them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, [and from what is strangled] and from blood: and that whatsoever they would not should be done to them ye do not to others. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.
Please note that in the Western version above, the part “and from things strangled” is in parentheses because it is not in the Western Version. So the Western Version reads: abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from blood: In other words, the Three Cardinal Sins of the Rabbis. Also note the next part that is in the Western Version, but not the Antiochian Version : and that whatsoever they would not should be done to them ye do not to others. This is easily recognizable as Hillel’s version of the Golden Rule.
What a perfect combination to give to new believers! First you tell them the three things they are never to do under pain of death, then you give them the Golden Rule and finally you tell them to go learn the rest of Torah in the Synagogues every Sabbath!
This also ties in nicely with the Torah command to include the aliens among you during the Feast of Tabernacles which is also called the Feast of the Gentiles:
Deu 31:10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
Deu 31:11 When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
Deu 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
Deu 31:13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.
I have since learned that many scholars agree with this view. To quote a friend in the Messianic movement: David Flusser, Shmuel Safrai, David Bivin (see New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus), and other scholars all hold to this view and feel the Western Version is more authentic. I believe that as more scholars begin to understand the Hebraic roots of the Christian movement, they will accept the Western Version of Acts.
Shalom,
Jeff
Then one day I was reading some excerpts from the Talmud and I ran across the statement that the sages taught that since the First Temple was destroyed due to rampant acts of murder, idolatry, and sexual immorality, there were three things you could not do even under pain of death: Idolatry, Fornication and …Murder. As fast as my mind races, I was already excited before I got to the third one. Only to be disappointed that it said murder instead of blood and things strangled. It was so close that I looked up the word for blood and discovered that the Greek word aima can mean blood as in the liquid or bloodshed as in to murder! I have included the Thayer’s definition only because it is easier to read, but the Strong’s definition is the same.
G129
αἷμα
aima
Thayer Definition:
1) blood
1a) of man or animals
1b) refers to the seat of life
1c) of those things that resemble blood, grape juice
2) bloodshed, to be shed by violence, slay, murder
Here is the Sanhedrin 74a link:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_74.html#PARTb#PARTb
So now I had the three “Cardinal Sins” that the rabbis talked about. However, that still did not deal with the “things strangled” part. My assumption was that because you could kill someone without causing bloodshed, that maybe someone added “things strangled” to it to close the loophole. Ie bloodshed and strangling equals murder. This is arguable since the Greek word for strangled, pniktos, appears nowhere else in the bible.
So even though I was fairly confident that the original edict was for Idolatry, Fornication and Murder, I still had no proof. That was until I discovered the Western Version of Acts. If you are not familiar with the Western Version of Acts, it is an ancient manuscript dating back to the fourth century of the first 22 chapters of Acts that is different from the commonly used version called the Antiochian Version. Most scholars assume that the Antiochian Version is the original because there are older copies of it and because the Western Version is longer. However, believing that “because there are more copies makes it the original” is equivalent to saying the "world was flat" because they all believed it to be. Here are the links to the English translation and to an article for you to read:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/acts_long_02_text.htm Link to English translation
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/acts_long_01_intro.htm Link to article by translator
These are the specific verses I want to show you:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles turn to God: but that we enjoin on them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, [and from what is strangled] and from blood: and that whatsoever they would not should be done to them ye do not to others. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.
Please note that in the Western version above, the part “and from things strangled” is in parentheses because it is not in the Western Version. So the Western Version reads: abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from blood: In other words, the Three Cardinal Sins of the Rabbis. Also note the next part that is in the Western Version, but not the Antiochian Version : and that whatsoever they would not should be done to them ye do not to others. This is easily recognizable as Hillel’s version of the Golden Rule.
What a perfect combination to give to new believers! First you tell them the three things they are never to do under pain of death, then you give them the Golden Rule and finally you tell them to go learn the rest of Torah in the Synagogues every Sabbath!
This also ties in nicely with the Torah command to include the aliens among you during the Feast of Tabernacles which is also called the Feast of the Gentiles:
Deu 31:10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
Deu 31:11 When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
Deu 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
Deu 31:13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.
I have since learned that many scholars agree with this view. To quote a friend in the Messianic movement: David Flusser, Shmuel Safrai, David Bivin (see New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus), and other scholars all hold to this view and feel the Western Version is more authentic. I believe that as more scholars begin to understand the Hebraic roots of the Christian movement, they will accept the Western Version of Acts.
Shalom,
Jeff
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Entering the Holy of Holies
There is a popular song that goes: I enter the Holy of Holies, I enter with the blood if the lamb…. While I have enjoyed that song in the past, I have often been troubled by the biblical accuracy of the lyrics. The song clearly relates to Hebrews chapters 8-10 where the author talks about boldly approaching or entering the Holy of Holies. It is in fact a very common teaching that, because the Temple curtain tore during the crucifixion of Jesus, we are now free to enter the Holy of Holies. I believe this is not the case at all and I will lay out my reasoning for you here.
First, let me share a little background. The original tabernacle (and the subsequent temples created to duplicate the tabernacle) was divided into two sections: there was the Holy Place, which contained the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread, and the Golden Lampstand; and there was the Holy of Holies or The Most Holy Place, which contained the Ark of the Covenant. It was in the Holy Place where the priests would perform daily routines that included burning incense, changing the shewbread, and taking care of the lampstand. The Holy of Holies (where God dwelt) was entered only once per year, and only by the High Priest. He would enter once a year on the Day of Atonement to make atonement for the entire congregation before God. If anyone else entered the Holy of Holies (or if the High Priest entered on any other day), he would be struck dead by God.
According to historical documents, at the time of Jesus there were very large curtains at the entrance of both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. These curtains separated the Holy Place from the courtyard and The Most Holy Place from the Holy Place. They also prevented seeing into the Holy Place from the courtyard and seeing into the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place. It has been written that these curtains were a hand span thick and as much as seventy feet high. This is significant because the curtain or veil that is described in the first three gospels as tearing from top to bottom could not have been the inner curtain. If the inner curtain had torn, you would not be able to see it from outside the temple. However, if the outer curtain had torn it would be clearly visible from outside the temple.
Symbolically it makes more sense for the outside curtain to have torn. The outside curtain was in a sense, God’s outer garments, and it was a very Hebraic thing for a father to tear his outer garments at the death of a son.
It is said that the tearing of the curtain was God’s way of showing us that we can now enter into a place that was once forbidden to us. However, it makes more sense that this place is the Holy Place, not the Most Holy Place. Remember that the Holy Place that was hidden by the outer curtain was where any priest was allowed to enter. The Most Holy Place that was hidden by the inner curtain was where only the High Priest could enter. We are called to be a kingdom of priests, not High Priests. Our High Priest is now Yeshua/Jesus.
Now from a historical and Old Testament point of view the previous arguments make sense. However, Hebrews chapters 8-10 clearly seem to indicate that we can now enter the Holy of Holies. The problem with the book of Hebrews is that the translations may not be exactly accurate. I will demonstrate using the ten verses from Hebrews chapters 8-10 that talk about the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies Place.
I have used the King James Version with Strong’s numbers to make my point. Strong’s number 39 is the Greek word hagion, which means a sacred thing or holy place. In order to have "Holy of Holies or Most Holy Place" you would use the word hagion twice. In other words, you would say Holy Holy or "Holy of Holies". So let’s look at what the King James does:
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary(39), and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. This verse uses just one Holy (39 ) and is translated sanctuary, but could also be translated Holy Place.
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary(39).
This verse also uses only one Holy and is clearly not referring to the Holy of Holies.
Heb 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein, was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary(39).
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all(39,39); These two verses clearly show the differences. The first is called sanctuary or Holy and the second is called the Holiest of all or Holy Holy. Please notice there are two Strong number 39's. We know that the first is the Holy Place because the candlestick, shewbread, etc. are located in the Holy Place. Therefore the second must be the Holy of Holies. Also please note that the author of Hebrews makes reference to the second veil.
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all(39) was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Translating this verse Holiest of all is clearly wrong because there is only one Holy 39.
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place(39), having obtained eternal redemption for us.
This verse has some discrepancies. The one Holy would be rendered Holy Place, but this verse seems to describe the role of the High Priest who would enter only once into the Holy of Holies. One of the earliest manuscripts (S1) does in fact have the second Holy, which would be more accurate given the context.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places(39) made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: This is a single Holy, however it is translated as the plural "Holy Places," which are likened to "figures of the true," so it is probably referring to both areas the sanctuary, not just one of the two Holy places.
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place(39) every year, with blood of others;
According to the oldest Greek manuscripts, this should have two Holies and be translated Holy of Holies. This is logical because it is describing the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies once every year.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into, the holiest(39) by the blood of Jesus,
This is where the translation gets important. Both the King James Version with Strong’s numbers and the oldest Greek manuscripts have only one Holy (please note only one 39). Therefore, this verse is talking about the Holy Place, not the Holy of Holies. Unfortunately many translations like NIV, King James, NLT, and others, translate it Holy of Holies. However, the NRSV and the NASB do not. The author of Hebrews is telling us that we can boldly enter the Holy Place because we are now priests, but as priests we would not enter the Holy of Holies. That is reserved for our High Priest Yeshua/Jesus.
Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary(39) by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
This verse is accurate because there is only one Holy and the actions of the High Priest that are described would take place in the Holy Place, not the Holy of Holies.
Every one of these verses shows that the author of Hebrews is being true to the original concepts of just Who is allowed to enter the Holy Place and Who is allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. To state that anyone can now enter the Holy of Holies not only goes against the Old Testament teaching, but clearly goes against the understanding of the author of Hebrews as well.
Here is another way of looking at this issue. At the time of Yeshua/Jesus, Paul (and virtually every book of the bible) the Holy of Holies was restricted to the High Priest once a year. If something as momentous as allowing everyone to enter the Holy of Holies had taken place, wouldn’t someone have spoken of it or written of it? Only one verse in the entire bible seems to change the rules of the tabernacle that were instituted by God; and the translation of that verse is clearly not without controversy.
Changing from the traditional teachings of this issue does not weaken the Christian faith. In fact, if anything, it strengthens it, by showing just how grafted in we are to God’s chosen people. And it also serves to give us a clear understanding of what it means when Paul writes, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5)
First, let me share a little background. The original tabernacle (and the subsequent temples created to duplicate the tabernacle) was divided into two sections: there was the Holy Place, which contained the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread, and the Golden Lampstand; and there was the Holy of Holies or The Most Holy Place, which contained the Ark of the Covenant. It was in the Holy Place where the priests would perform daily routines that included burning incense, changing the shewbread, and taking care of the lampstand. The Holy of Holies (where God dwelt) was entered only once per year, and only by the High Priest. He would enter once a year on the Day of Atonement to make atonement for the entire congregation before God. If anyone else entered the Holy of Holies (or if the High Priest entered on any other day), he would be struck dead by God.
According to historical documents, at the time of Jesus there were very large curtains at the entrance of both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. These curtains separated the Holy Place from the courtyard and The Most Holy Place from the Holy Place. They also prevented seeing into the Holy Place from the courtyard and seeing into the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place. It has been written that these curtains were a hand span thick and as much as seventy feet high. This is significant because the curtain or veil that is described in the first three gospels as tearing from top to bottom could not have been the inner curtain. If the inner curtain had torn, you would not be able to see it from outside the temple. However, if the outer curtain had torn it would be clearly visible from outside the temple.
Symbolically it makes more sense for the outside curtain to have torn. The outside curtain was in a sense, God’s outer garments, and it was a very Hebraic thing for a father to tear his outer garments at the death of a son.
It is said that the tearing of the curtain was God’s way of showing us that we can now enter into a place that was once forbidden to us. However, it makes more sense that this place is the Holy Place, not the Most Holy Place. Remember that the Holy Place that was hidden by the outer curtain was where any priest was allowed to enter. The Most Holy Place that was hidden by the inner curtain was where only the High Priest could enter. We are called to be a kingdom of priests, not High Priests. Our High Priest is now Yeshua/Jesus.
Now from a historical and Old Testament point of view the previous arguments make sense. However, Hebrews chapters 8-10 clearly seem to indicate that we can now enter the Holy of Holies. The problem with the book of Hebrews is that the translations may not be exactly accurate. I will demonstrate using the ten verses from Hebrews chapters 8-10 that talk about the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies Place.
I have used the King James Version with Strong’s numbers to make my point. Strong’s number 39 is the Greek word hagion, which means a sacred thing or holy place. In order to have "Holy of Holies or Most Holy Place" you would use the word hagion twice. In other words, you would say Holy Holy or "Holy of Holies". So let’s look at what the King James does:
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary(39), and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. This verse uses just one Holy (39 ) and is translated sanctuary, but could also be translated Holy Place.
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary(39).
This verse also uses only one Holy and is clearly not referring to the Holy of Holies.
Heb 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein, was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary(39).
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all(39,39); These two verses clearly show the differences. The first is called sanctuary or Holy and the second is called the Holiest of all or Holy Holy. Please notice there are two Strong number 39's. We know that the first is the Holy Place because the candlestick, shewbread, etc. are located in the Holy Place. Therefore the second must be the Holy of Holies. Also please note that the author of Hebrews makes reference to the second veil.
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all(39) was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Translating this verse Holiest of all is clearly wrong because there is only one Holy 39.
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place(39), having obtained eternal redemption for us.
This verse has some discrepancies. The one Holy would be rendered Holy Place, but this verse seems to describe the role of the High Priest who would enter only once into the Holy of Holies. One of the earliest manuscripts (S1) does in fact have the second Holy, which would be more accurate given the context.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places(39) made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: This is a single Holy, however it is translated as the plural "Holy Places," which are likened to "figures of the true," so it is probably referring to both areas the sanctuary, not just one of the two Holy places.
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place(39) every year, with blood of others;
According to the oldest Greek manuscripts, this should have two Holies and be translated Holy of Holies. This is logical because it is describing the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies once every year.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into, the holiest(39) by the blood of Jesus,
This is where the translation gets important. Both the King James Version with Strong’s numbers and the oldest Greek manuscripts have only one Holy (please note only one 39). Therefore, this verse is talking about the Holy Place, not the Holy of Holies. Unfortunately many translations like NIV, King James, NLT, and others, translate it Holy of Holies. However, the NRSV and the NASB do not. The author of Hebrews is telling us that we can boldly enter the Holy Place because we are now priests, but as priests we would not enter the Holy of Holies. That is reserved for our High Priest Yeshua/Jesus.
Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary(39) by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
This verse is accurate because there is only one Holy and the actions of the High Priest that are described would take place in the Holy Place, not the Holy of Holies.
Every one of these verses shows that the author of Hebrews is being true to the original concepts of just Who is allowed to enter the Holy Place and Who is allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. To state that anyone can now enter the Holy of Holies not only goes against the Old Testament teaching, but clearly goes against the understanding of the author of Hebrews as well.
Here is another way of looking at this issue. At the time of Yeshua/Jesus, Paul (and virtually every book of the bible) the Holy of Holies was restricted to the High Priest once a year. If something as momentous as allowing everyone to enter the Holy of Holies had taken place, wouldn’t someone have spoken of it or written of it? Only one verse in the entire bible seems to change the rules of the tabernacle that were instituted by God; and the translation of that verse is clearly not without controversy.
Changing from the traditional teachings of this issue does not weaken the Christian faith. In fact, if anything, it strengthens it, by showing just how grafted in we are to God’s chosen people. And it also serves to give us a clear understanding of what it means when Paul writes, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5)
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Colossians Chapter 2 Discussion
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (dogma) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Many commentators make the statement that ordinances/Dogma refers to Torah. They state that it was Torah that separated the Gentiles from God’s people which is totally in error. God himself said there was one Torah for the Israelites and the Gentiles. See EX 12:49, Lev 24:22, Num 15:16
Peter himself said:
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Peter says it was against the Law for him to enter a gentile’s house. Where is that in the Torah? It is not, but it is in the Oral Law.
In Acts 10, clearly God was not telling Peter that he no longer had to keep Torah. Instead he was teaching him not to put man’s traditions (Oral Law) ahead of his Law. That is why we see the word common (the Greek word koinos). The Jews held that something that didn’t reach their religious standard was common and they considered that equivalent to God’s unclean (the Greek word akathartos). In Acts 10, Peter was being taught that their religious rules should not outweigh His. “Do not call something common that I do not consider unclean”. God was telling Peter that he did not consider the Gentiles unclean, so Peter was not to consider them common, that is unclean. The same lesson is taught in Mark 7 and Romans 14. Both places the word is common, but many bibles translate it unclean. In Acts 10 you have both words so that they cannot translate it unclean.
This rule of “common” was a hedge that the Jews had put up to protect themselves, but it also had the effect of cutting the gentiles off from them. It was this hedge that Paul spoke of in Eph 2:
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition (literally “hedge”)between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; (the Greek word dogma, just like in Col 2) for to make in himself of twain, one new man, so making peace;
Jesus broke down the caste system that the Jews had built up. There are many instances where Jesus, Paul and Peter talk about this. It also fits quite well with the arguments between the Shammai and the Hillel Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body (is) of Christ.
Sounds to me like Paul is saying only let the body of Christ judge you. But who is the body of Christ? It is interesting that many translations including this commentator change from Body of Christ to something like: the body is of Christ, or but the substance or reality is of Christ. However, everywhere else that Paul uses the same words, they translate it Body of Christ. Look it up.
Paul is telling these former pagans, that the only people whose opinions they should value are other believers. Don’t let nonbelievers judge them because they keep the Sabbaths, New Moons, Holy Days or what they do or do not drink.
Here is the main question. If Paul wanted them to stop keeping the Torah, why did he not say in BIG BOLD LETTERS: STOP KEEPING THE TORAH! Yet he never does. I guess he was too wishy-washy to do something like that.
By saying that the Dogma has been done away with, he is saying that they are part of the children of Yaweh. Because they are:
no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; they should not let anyone judge them but the body of Christ.
(Eph 2:19)
They should Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, (Col 2:8)
And that they should Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility, and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, (Col 2:18)
And
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish, with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have, indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.
Everything described here is pagan in origin or at the least Hellenistic, not Orthodox Jewish. He is telling them to stay away from the pagan rituals of angels and philosophy and traditions of men.
That’s right! He said traditions of men, not Traditions of God. Paul never refers to the Torah as a tradition of men.
Most commentators state their bias when they refer to the Old Jewish Laws, ie the old testament laws. In a nutshell they believe that Christ came to start a new religion and that the old religion has been done away with.
I still do not get how they can believe that. Jesus kept the feast days and Sabbaths. Paul kept the feast days and Nazarite vows. Peter continued to eat kosher ten years after the death of Jesus, yet the Law was done away with?
Show me one example of a disciple of Christ not keeping Torah and I will accept that He did away with it!
Shalom,
Jeff
Many commentators make the statement that ordinances/Dogma refers to Torah. They state that it was Torah that separated the Gentiles from God’s people which is totally in error. God himself said there was one Torah for the Israelites and the Gentiles. See EX 12:49, Lev 24:22, Num 15:16
Peter himself said:
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Peter says it was against the Law for him to enter a gentile’s house. Where is that in the Torah? It is not, but it is in the Oral Law.
In Acts 10, clearly God was not telling Peter that he no longer had to keep Torah. Instead he was teaching him not to put man’s traditions (Oral Law) ahead of his Law. That is why we see the word common (the Greek word koinos). The Jews held that something that didn’t reach their religious standard was common and they considered that equivalent to God’s unclean (the Greek word akathartos). In Acts 10, Peter was being taught that their religious rules should not outweigh His. “Do not call something common that I do not consider unclean”. God was telling Peter that he did not consider the Gentiles unclean, so Peter was not to consider them common, that is unclean. The same lesson is taught in Mark 7 and Romans 14. Both places the word is common, but many bibles translate it unclean. In Acts 10 you have both words so that they cannot translate it unclean.
This rule of “common” was a hedge that the Jews had put up to protect themselves, but it also had the effect of cutting the gentiles off from them. It was this hedge that Paul spoke of in Eph 2:
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition (literally “hedge”)between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; (the Greek word dogma, just like in Col 2) for to make in himself of twain, one new man, so making peace;
Jesus broke down the caste system that the Jews had built up. There are many instances where Jesus, Paul and Peter talk about this. It also fits quite well with the arguments between the Shammai and the Hillel Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body (is) of Christ.
Sounds to me like Paul is saying only let the body of Christ judge you. But who is the body of Christ? It is interesting that many translations including this commentator change from Body of Christ to something like: the body is of Christ, or but the substance or reality is of Christ. However, everywhere else that Paul uses the same words, they translate it Body of Christ. Look it up.
Paul is telling these former pagans, that the only people whose opinions they should value are other believers. Don’t let nonbelievers judge them because they keep the Sabbaths, New Moons, Holy Days or what they do or do not drink.
Here is the main question. If Paul wanted them to stop keeping the Torah, why did he not say in BIG BOLD LETTERS: STOP KEEPING THE TORAH! Yet he never does. I guess he was too wishy-washy to do something like that.
By saying that the Dogma has been done away with, he is saying that they are part of the children of Yaweh. Because they are:
no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; they should not let anyone judge them but the body of Christ.
(Eph 2:19)
They should Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, (Col 2:8)
And that they should Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility, and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, (Col 2:18)
And
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish, with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have, indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.
Everything described here is pagan in origin or at the least Hellenistic, not Orthodox Jewish. He is telling them to stay away from the pagan rituals of angels and philosophy and traditions of men.
That’s right! He said traditions of men, not Traditions of God. Paul never refers to the Torah as a tradition of men.
Most commentators state their bias when they refer to the Old Jewish Laws, ie the old testament laws. In a nutshell they believe that Christ came to start a new religion and that the old religion has been done away with.
I still do not get how they can believe that. Jesus kept the feast days and Sabbaths. Paul kept the feast days and Nazarite vows. Peter continued to eat kosher ten years after the death of Jesus, yet the Law was done away with?
Show me one example of a disciple of Christ not keeping Torah and I will accept that He did away with it!
Shalom,
Jeff
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Sin and Death
As someone who leads a messianic prison ministry, I am often caught between the roles of grace and law. Usually we spend time discussing the meaning of sin, but there might be a more important thing to define. What is the biblical meaning of death? Since death is the result of sin (breaking the law), maybe it would help the discussion if we discussed the meaning of “death”.
Adam was told that if they took of the “tree of knowledge” that they would die. However, when they did, they did not die, but instead they were cut off from the “tree of life”. Now most people will say they “died spiritually”, but that is not what is described here. What happened when they sinned? They were cut off from the presence of God. Prior to their sin, they “walked with God”, but afterwards they were blocked from the “Tree of Life”. Many talk of the “Tree of Life” as Torah, but it makes no sense that Yahweh would cut us off from that which explains sin if we sin. Interestingly, Kabalah says the “Tree of Life” is the “path to God”. So by that definition, Adam and Eve’s sin cause them to be blocked from free access to Yahweh.
Does that make sense? Well how many times are we shown this? If you sinned in Moses’ day, you were removed from the camp, from His Presence. If you were in sin, you could not “draw near” to Yahweh with your offering. Cain was not killed, but put out of the garden for murder. Throughout the bible we see examples where if we sin we are separated from God, which should be a punishment worse than death. But do we think of separation from God as worse than death? I don’t think so.
Most Christians today think that being in the perfect presence of God is what Heaven is, and that is what happens after death. Yet the bible shows Yaweh’s desire for us is to be in his presence here on earth. The Kingdom of Heaven (God) is Near (or as the rabbis say, the Kingdom of Heaven is offered). Maybe if we did a better job of helping the family desire the presence of God, then they would fear separation (death) and would desire to avoid death by understanding His Torah. Instead of trying to convince believers they need to keep the Torah, maybe the discussion should be how do we make them want the presence of God?
Shalom,
Jeff
Adam was told that if they took of the “tree of knowledge” that they would die. However, when they did, they did not die, but instead they were cut off from the “tree of life”. Now most people will say they “died spiritually”, but that is not what is described here. What happened when they sinned? They were cut off from the presence of God. Prior to their sin, they “walked with God”, but afterwards they were blocked from the “Tree of Life”. Many talk of the “Tree of Life” as Torah, but it makes no sense that Yahweh would cut us off from that which explains sin if we sin. Interestingly, Kabalah says the “Tree of Life” is the “path to God”. So by that definition, Adam and Eve’s sin cause them to be blocked from free access to Yahweh.
Does that make sense? Well how many times are we shown this? If you sinned in Moses’ day, you were removed from the camp, from His Presence. If you were in sin, you could not “draw near” to Yahweh with your offering. Cain was not killed, but put out of the garden for murder. Throughout the bible we see examples where if we sin we are separated from God, which should be a punishment worse than death. But do we think of separation from God as worse than death? I don’t think so.
Most Christians today think that being in the perfect presence of God is what Heaven is, and that is what happens after death. Yet the bible shows Yaweh’s desire for us is to be in his presence here on earth. The Kingdom of Heaven (God) is Near (or as the rabbis say, the Kingdom of Heaven is offered). Maybe if we did a better job of helping the family desire the presence of God, then they would fear separation (death) and would desire to avoid death by understanding His Torah. Instead of trying to convince believers they need to keep the Torah, maybe the discussion should be how do we make them want the presence of God?
Shalom,
Jeff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
