In Luke chapter 10 we read Yeshua/Jesus' teaching on the good Samaritan. In this story, two men, a Cohen and a Levi, walk past an injured, possibly dead man while a Samaritan stops to help him. Many people do not grasp some of the more subtle issues of this story.
First, the Cohen and Levi represent the most pious people of Yeshua/Jesus' day, while the Samaritan represents the untouchables in this same society. It is easy to simply write off the Cohen and Levi as simply uncaring, but that is selling them short. To a Cohen or Levi, their entire lives might have been devoted to obtaining ritual purity as a method of drawing closer to God. Since coming in contact with a dead body is one of the worst threats to ritual impurity, it is defendable that this is what caused them to avoid the man in the ditch.
Regarding the Good Samaritan, it took the following quote from Margaret Thatcher for me to realize the depth of his respons:
“No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions - he had money too!”
Not only did the Samaritan stop to help, but he spent a significant amount of his own money to feed and shelter the man.
It appears to me that Yeshua/Jesus is showing us which character traits he considers most important.
I posted the following response to a blog that was discussing the acceptance of Gentiles into the Messianic Jewish congregations:
In 1982 I moved from Illinois to Oregon. I was told to quickly change my license because Oregonians did not like outsiders and would even vandalize the cars that did not have Oregon plates..
When we moved to Colorado 12 years ago, I was surprised by the attitudes directed at me by lifelong residents of Colorado. It was as if not having that "Native" bumper sticker on your car made you less of a person. I found it interesting that both states' residents had the attitude of "Look at what makes our states special, but don't come here to enjoy them."
When we moved to a small town on the plains three years ago, I was shocked to find that same condescending air of hostility from the town's residents. It doesn't matter what your status is from doctor to business owner to feedlot dung collector, "if you weren't born in this town then you are less than me."
I am now experiencing it in the Messianic community and I would like to say that my past experiences have made me better able to handle being treated as a second class citizen. But I cannot. I believe that my God judges me by my character and not that I came from Illinois.
According to the New Testament, Yeshua did not spend a lot of time teaching on the specific halachic issues of his day. Whether that proves that he supported them, however, can never be completely substantiated.
On the other hand he did spend a lot of time teaching on character issues that he believed were important and that can be completely substantiated.
Until we put the issues that our Messiah considered most important first, there is absolutely no way that we can be doing the proper walk. Five years ago my wife and I stopped attending Messianic congregations because we decided we would rather be surrounded by people who have a spirit-filled love of God and who actively care for their fellow man than talit covered self-seeking people who would walk past an injured man on the road.
I would ask that you ask yourself, are you a Cohen, a Levi or a Samaritan?
As for me, I would rather judge a man by the strength of his character than by the color of his Tekhelet.
Shalom, Jeff.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Call Me a Messianic Hebrew
Call me a Messianic Hebrew.
There is (as usual) the ongoing debate within the Messianic community as to where the gentiles (read nonJews) fit in. As a nonJew, as far as I know, I have been told to convert to Judaism, go to a gentile Messianic congregation and to even go back to the church where I belong. As someone who viewed coming out of the church nearly the equivalent of coming out of Babylon, to be told to go back really makes me question the heart of those who would recommend that.
So as the one being told where to go, I have had to turn back to the scriptures to see where God would have me be.
About thirteen years ago I was in the middle of a “spirit-filled” church, when God started telling me to “be a Godly man.” When I looked around my church and saw only “the world”, I realized that being Godly meant being somewhere else. At about the same time, my wife who is a family practice physician started to get asked to do eighth day circumcisions by some of the local Messianics. Over the next few years she became the mo’el for almost every Messianic congregation within two hundred miles. And it was because of this that we came in contact with almost every Messianic flavor there was.
For a little more than ten years I have been sliding back and forth on the scale between Jew and Christian. I used to say, “that on a scale of “one” being the most orthodox of Jews and “ten” being the most charismatic of Christians, the real answer lies about a “four. “” When it came to Messianic congregations, I used to rate them that way. Ie They are a “three” or they are a “three” on their way to becoming a “two”. For us a “two” would be a congregation that was so orthodox that it hardly ever mentioned Yeshua or read from the New Testatment. We saw many of those over the years.
When I was part of the Spirit-filled congregation, I used to feel the presence of God in our midst. I have experienced the same in Messianic congregations, but with much less regularity. In fact, it may be anecdotal, but the closer I got to a “one” on the scale, the less I felt the presence of God.
Now don’t get me wrong. I do not believe the Jews are farther from God than the Christians. What I saw instead was as Christians tried to become more Jewish, they would move farther from the Spirit of God. So maybe my scale doesn’t work. I think that instead of having the two points of Judaism and Christianity, there is a third point of Godliness that has both the Spirit and the works present. More of a triangle than a straight line, where if a Christian or a Jew wants to be more Godly, they will have to move towards it.
So how do we find that point? Where do we have to go to find the common point between Jews and Christians where they are both more Godly? I think that Paul was trying to teach it to us in Romans and Galatians. We must get back to Abraham! If you had the faith of Abraham, then you are a child of the one true God.
Abraham was called a Hebrew which means "one on the other side" or "one who has crossed over" because he had crossed over and set himself apart from the pagan world. From the beginning he was recognized by those around him as someone who followed God, not the world. Notice however that those who came after him were not called Abrahamites, but were also called Hebrews. Being a Hebrew was not about lineage, but about a state of mind.
Abraham was called a Hebrew. His sons and members of their camp were called Hebrews. And finally the Israelites were called Hebrews because they were all “on the other side”. As for the title Jew, that did not come about until after the Babylonian captivity. Prior to the expulsion to Babylon, the capital of pagan idolatry, the Israelites were referred to as Hebrews. Afterwards, they are only referred to as Jews. You might say they went into Babylon a Hebrew and came out a Jew.
Is that an unfair assertion that there was a change? I don’t think so when you see that all of the pagan and Hellenistic influences date back to the Babylonian captivity.
To tell me that I should go back to the church is impossible because I could never go back to what I now see as all the pagan influences. However, I cannot go willingly to the Jewish side because of the same reasons.
That is why I have decided that I will be a Hebrew or in this case a Messianic Hebrew.
There is (as usual) the ongoing debate within the Messianic community as to where the gentiles (read nonJews) fit in. As a nonJew, as far as I know, I have been told to convert to Judaism, go to a gentile Messianic congregation and to even go back to the church where I belong. As someone who viewed coming out of the church nearly the equivalent of coming out of Babylon, to be told to go back really makes me question the heart of those who would recommend that.
So as the one being told where to go, I have had to turn back to the scriptures to see where God would have me be.
About thirteen years ago I was in the middle of a “spirit-filled” church, when God started telling me to “be a Godly man.” When I looked around my church and saw only “the world”, I realized that being Godly meant being somewhere else. At about the same time, my wife who is a family practice physician started to get asked to do eighth day circumcisions by some of the local Messianics. Over the next few years she became the mo’el for almost every Messianic congregation within two hundred miles. And it was because of this that we came in contact with almost every Messianic flavor there was.
For a little more than ten years I have been sliding back and forth on the scale between Jew and Christian. I used to say, “that on a scale of “one” being the most orthodox of Jews and “ten” being the most charismatic of Christians, the real answer lies about a “four. “” When it came to Messianic congregations, I used to rate them that way. Ie They are a “three” or they are a “three” on their way to becoming a “two”. For us a “two” would be a congregation that was so orthodox that it hardly ever mentioned Yeshua or read from the New Testatment. We saw many of those over the years.
When I was part of the Spirit-filled congregation, I used to feel the presence of God in our midst. I have experienced the same in Messianic congregations, but with much less regularity. In fact, it may be anecdotal, but the closer I got to a “one” on the scale, the less I felt the presence of God.
Now don’t get me wrong. I do not believe the Jews are farther from God than the Christians. What I saw instead was as Christians tried to become more Jewish, they would move farther from the Spirit of God. So maybe my scale doesn’t work. I think that instead of having the two points of Judaism and Christianity, there is a third point of Godliness that has both the Spirit and the works present. More of a triangle than a straight line, where if a Christian or a Jew wants to be more Godly, they will have to move towards it.
So how do we find that point? Where do we have to go to find the common point between Jews and Christians where they are both more Godly? I think that Paul was trying to teach it to us in Romans and Galatians. We must get back to Abraham! If you had the faith of Abraham, then you are a child of the one true God.
Abraham was called a Hebrew which means "one on the other side" or "one who has crossed over" because he had crossed over and set himself apart from the pagan world. From the beginning he was recognized by those around him as someone who followed God, not the world. Notice however that those who came after him were not called Abrahamites, but were also called Hebrews. Being a Hebrew was not about lineage, but about a state of mind.
Abraham was called a Hebrew. His sons and members of their camp were called Hebrews. And finally the Israelites were called Hebrews because they were all “on the other side”. As for the title Jew, that did not come about until after the Babylonian captivity. Prior to the expulsion to Babylon, the capital of pagan idolatry, the Israelites were referred to as Hebrews. Afterwards, they are only referred to as Jews. You might say they went into Babylon a Hebrew and came out a Jew.
Is that an unfair assertion that there was a change? I don’t think so when you see that all of the pagan and Hellenistic influences date back to the Babylonian captivity.
To tell me that I should go back to the church is impossible because I could never go back to what I now see as all the pagan influences. However, I cannot go willingly to the Jewish side because of the same reasons.
That is why I have decided that I will be a Hebrew or in this case a Messianic Hebrew.
You are what you eat.
Ok, so the term biblically kosher is out. Yes, I try to refrain from consuming that which the bible says is abhorant to God. But is it possible that from time to time I misunderstand what the Torah is trying to say? I am sure there are times.
And yes I have read the pro-kashrut writings before and probably have a couple dozen books defending it on my shelf. But the argument is always the same with the pro kashrut crowd. Since we Hebrew ignorant gentiles cannot possibly understand what He meant, we must do it the Jewish way. Whatever that means.
Yet keeping kashrut is like that kids game where you try to pick the largest number. You say infinity, but the other kids says “Nope, infinity plus one!” There is always one more layer that you missed.
Now I’m not saying that trying to keep the biblical dietary laws is wrong. It is just that from my experience, when someone spends a lot of time on that, they usually are lacking somewhere else.
For instance, my wife and I used to attend a messianic congregation until they got mad at us for bringing store bought fried chicken for their potluck. Now, the main reason that we spent $100 on chicken was because we got tired of seeing people not get to eat because the majority of the attendees would bring almost nothing yet take enough food for three people. So we left and took the food to a shelter to help the needy, something we also never saw that congregation do.
Most people miss the point of the teaching of the good Samaritan. That it was a Cohen and a Levy that walked past the man in need because they were afraid he might make them unclean!
I had a congregational leader tell me that he stresses issues like kashrut and purity because he believes that our actions can motivate the heart. I agree that following His commands can lead to a heart change on some things. But only if there was a heart to begin with.
If we as messianics want to use Torah commands to effect a change in hearts, shouldn’t we start with those that our Messiah taught?: Love of God; love of man; caring for the widows, needy and orphans, etc.
Lead with good deeds and your heart will surely follow!
Shalom, Jeff.
And yes I have read the pro-kashrut writings before and probably have a couple dozen books defending it on my shelf. But the argument is always the same with the pro kashrut crowd. Since we Hebrew ignorant gentiles cannot possibly understand what He meant, we must do it the Jewish way. Whatever that means.
Yet keeping kashrut is like that kids game where you try to pick the largest number. You say infinity, but the other kids says “Nope, infinity plus one!” There is always one more layer that you missed.
Now I’m not saying that trying to keep the biblical dietary laws is wrong. It is just that from my experience, when someone spends a lot of time on that, they usually are lacking somewhere else.
For instance, my wife and I used to attend a messianic congregation until they got mad at us for bringing store bought fried chicken for their potluck. Now, the main reason that we spent $100 on chicken was because we got tired of seeing people not get to eat because the majority of the attendees would bring almost nothing yet take enough food for three people. So we left and took the food to a shelter to help the needy, something we also never saw that congregation do.
Most people miss the point of the teaching of the good Samaritan. That it was a Cohen and a Levy that walked past the man in need because they were afraid he might make them unclean!
I had a congregational leader tell me that he stresses issues like kashrut and purity because he believes that our actions can motivate the heart. I agree that following His commands can lead to a heart change on some things. But only if there was a heart to begin with.
If we as messianics want to use Torah commands to effect a change in hearts, shouldn’t we start with those that our Messiah taught?: Love of God; love of man; caring for the widows, needy and orphans, etc.
Lead with good deeds and your heart will surely follow!
Shalom, Jeff.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Who is the Seed of Galatians 3:16?
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Galatians 3:16 is one of the least understood verses of all of Paul’s writings, yet it might be one of the most important. The traditional understanding is that the seed of Abraham is Jesus/Yeshua and from most translations, that is understandable. However, this understanding of the verse has some problems.
Some of the questions that arise are as follows:
1. The verse says the promises were made to the seed of Abraham and that the seed is Christ. So what do the scriptures say were the promises that were made to Christ?
2. If the promises were made to Abraham and to Christ only, then does that mean that no one else can share in them?
3. The word seed, which is the Greek word sperma from which we get sperm, is usually used to reference literal descendants. Can this apply to Jesus/Yeshua since he did not come from a man’s seed, but from God?
If you take the time to think about it, the traditional way of reading this does not make sense. One alternate view states that the mistake is made in translating the Greek word Christos as the pronoun Christ. Christ is simply the transliteration of Christos and has therefore lost some of its meaning. The Greek word Christos literally means “the anointed one or ones”. That is why some people say Jesus the Christ because literally Jesus Christ could be translated Jesus the anointed one. We see the same thing with the Greek word baptizō which means immersion, being transliterated baptism which can mean sprinkled to someone.
The biggest issue with losing the “anointed” meaning is that being anointed has a definite meaning in the Old Testament, especially when referencing the High Priest or the future Messiah. This is why one translator does Gal 3:16 this way:
'To Abraham and his seed were the promises announced. He saith not, And to the seeds, as to many, but as to one, And to thy seed which is anointed.'
Alternatively the last clause could be rendered, 'And to thy seed which is an anointed people.'
So this translator takes the anointing from Jesus and places it on the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I personally do not agree with this view either. I instead think that the confusion comes from the way Paul’s idea is laid out in the Greek. Because the Greek did not have punctuation and capitalization, it is usually up to the reader to decide which nouns the pronouns, adjectives and adverbs reference. This is done by understanding the context of the sentence. So if you think it is all about Jesus, then he is “the promise” and “the seed”. If however, you think it is all about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then they are “the promise” and “the seed”.
There is another solution that falls between these two views, however. If we rearrange the verse, to make it easier for us to understand it, then a different way of looking at it appears:
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. which is Christ. He saith not And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
If the verse is read this way, then the seed is clearly the single line of Abraham through Isaac and Christ is the promise. This overcomes the various problems with the traditional reading, yet does not remove Christ from the picture like the alternate reading does. For those who might think this is manipulating the verse to get a desired outcome, let’s look at the next verse:
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Paul does the same thing in this verse. It is better read this way:
Gal 3:17 And this I say, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, the covenant, that it should make the promise of none effect. which was confirmed before of God in Christ,
So in a more straightforward way of saying it: The Law could not undo the Abrahamic covenant that happened 430 years before. Nor was it ever intended to.
Most commentators do not have a problem with this understanding even though it is laid out the exact same way as the prior verse. The problem with the prior verse is the bias that the commentators bring. Most Christian scholars see the Church as having replaced the physical line of Abraham, so in verse 3:16 the seed cannot be about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. On the opposite extreme, most Jewish leaning scholars always try to err on the more Orthodox way of looking at something. But in Galatians, Paul is writing to a group of non-Jewish, recent converts to following the Messiah of Yahweh and it makes sense that his letters would include some of both.
This becomes more obvious when this verse is not read separately.
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. which is Christ. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
Gal 3:17 And this I say, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, the covenant, that it should make the promise of none effect. which was confirmed before of God in Christ,
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Reading Galatians properly also helps or is helped by the following verses from Romans:
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
So by reading Paul correctly, we should understand that the promise of a messiah was always the result of having a faith like Abraham had and not of some actions on our part. The Law/Torah was to help us with our relationship.
Galatians 3:16 is one of the least understood verses of all of Paul’s writings, yet it might be one of the most important. The traditional understanding is that the seed of Abraham is Jesus/Yeshua and from most translations, that is understandable. However, this understanding of the verse has some problems.
Some of the questions that arise are as follows:
1. The verse says the promises were made to the seed of Abraham and that the seed is Christ. So what do the scriptures say were the promises that were made to Christ?
2. If the promises were made to Abraham and to Christ only, then does that mean that no one else can share in them?
3. The word seed, which is the Greek word sperma from which we get sperm, is usually used to reference literal descendants. Can this apply to Jesus/Yeshua since he did not come from a man’s seed, but from God?
If you take the time to think about it, the traditional way of reading this does not make sense. One alternate view states that the mistake is made in translating the Greek word Christos as the pronoun Christ. Christ is simply the transliteration of Christos and has therefore lost some of its meaning. The Greek word Christos literally means “the anointed one or ones”. That is why some people say Jesus the Christ because literally Jesus Christ could be translated Jesus the anointed one. We see the same thing with the Greek word baptizō which means immersion, being transliterated baptism which can mean sprinkled to someone.
The biggest issue with losing the “anointed” meaning is that being anointed has a definite meaning in the Old Testament, especially when referencing the High Priest or the future Messiah. This is why one translator does Gal 3:16 this way:
'To Abraham and his seed were the promises announced. He saith not, And to the seeds, as to many, but as to one, And to thy seed which is anointed.'
Alternatively the last clause could be rendered, 'And to thy seed which is an anointed people.'
So this translator takes the anointing from Jesus and places it on the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I personally do not agree with this view either. I instead think that the confusion comes from the way Paul’s idea is laid out in the Greek. Because the Greek did not have punctuation and capitalization, it is usually up to the reader to decide which nouns the pronouns, adjectives and adverbs reference. This is done by understanding the context of the sentence. So if you think it is all about Jesus, then he is “the promise” and “the seed”. If however, you think it is all about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then they are “the promise” and “the seed”.
There is another solution that falls between these two views, however. If we rearrange the verse, to make it easier for us to understand it, then a different way of looking at it appears:
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. which is Christ. He saith not And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
If the verse is read this way, then the seed is clearly the single line of Abraham through Isaac and Christ is the promise. This overcomes the various problems with the traditional reading, yet does not remove Christ from the picture like the alternate reading does. For those who might think this is manipulating the verse to get a desired outcome, let’s look at the next verse:
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Paul does the same thing in this verse. It is better read this way:
Gal 3:17 And this I say, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, the covenant, that it should make the promise of none effect. which was confirmed before of God in Christ,
So in a more straightforward way of saying it: The Law could not undo the Abrahamic covenant that happened 430 years before. Nor was it ever intended to.
Most commentators do not have a problem with this understanding even though it is laid out the exact same way as the prior verse. The problem with the prior verse is the bias that the commentators bring. Most Christian scholars see the Church as having replaced the physical line of Abraham, so in verse 3:16 the seed cannot be about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. On the opposite extreme, most Jewish leaning scholars always try to err on the more Orthodox way of looking at something. But in Galatians, Paul is writing to a group of non-Jewish, recent converts to following the Messiah of Yahweh and it makes sense that his letters would include some of both.
This becomes more obvious when this verse is not read separately.
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. which is Christ. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
Gal 3:17 And this I say, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, the covenant, that it should make the promise of none effect. which was confirmed before of God in Christ,
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Reading Galatians properly also helps or is helped by the following verses from Romans:
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
So by reading Paul correctly, we should understand that the promise of a messiah was always the result of having a faith like Abraham had and not of some actions on our part. The Law/Torah was to help us with our relationship.
Is the New Testament scripture equivalent to the Torah?
I have found that I have to be very careful around my Christian friends regarding the veracity of certain translations. Most do not want to consider that their favorite translation might have some issues. ie “Don’t confuse my dogma with your facts.”
That being said, one cannot spend any serious time studying the bible, verses just reading it, and not have some concerns about the translation. Since both Hebrew and Greek are subjective languages and the meaning is dependent on the context, there pretty much has to be bias built into every translation. The context that you use will determine the meaning assigned to the word. For instance, if I say "Bob is a big man", do I mean that he is tall, fat or important? Thus the vital need for puting the New Testament into historical context.
It used to bother me that even with careful translation of the original texts, there still appear to be contradictions or errors. However, I once heard a teaching by D. Thomas Lancaster at the FFOZ Y3K conference responding to the anti-missionaries who use these contradictions as ammo to criticize Christianity. In his talk, he pointed out that the Jewish scholars do not have any problem with contradictions in the Talmud. In fact, they will put two diametrically opposed views right in the same discussion and have no problem saying that they are both from God. They do not, however, grant the same allowances for the New Testament. They will use the smallest of inconsistencies between the writers, even those that might be due to translation errors, and state that they render the entire NT invalid.
I do not believe that the authors of the books of the New Testament believed they were writing scripture equivalent to the Tanak. And because of that, they did not hesitate to use Jewish teaching styles and in the case of Paul, even Greek teaching styles. To try to read the apostolic scriptures as literally as the Torah, misses out on the teaching points the first century Jewish writers were making.
Shalom, Jeff.
That being said, one cannot spend any serious time studying the bible, verses just reading it, and not have some concerns about the translation. Since both Hebrew and Greek are subjective languages and the meaning is dependent on the context, there pretty much has to be bias built into every translation. The context that you use will determine the meaning assigned to the word. For instance, if I say "Bob is a big man", do I mean that he is tall, fat or important? Thus the vital need for puting the New Testament into historical context.
It used to bother me that even with careful translation of the original texts, there still appear to be contradictions or errors. However, I once heard a teaching by D. Thomas Lancaster at the FFOZ Y3K conference responding to the anti-missionaries who use these contradictions as ammo to criticize Christianity. In his talk, he pointed out that the Jewish scholars do not have any problem with contradictions in the Talmud. In fact, they will put two diametrically opposed views right in the same discussion and have no problem saying that they are both from God. They do not, however, grant the same allowances for the New Testament. They will use the smallest of inconsistencies between the writers, even those that might be due to translation errors, and state that they render the entire NT invalid.
I do not believe that the authors of the books of the New Testament believed they were writing scripture equivalent to the Tanak. And because of that, they did not hesitate to use Jewish teaching styles and in the case of Paul, even Greek teaching styles. To try to read the apostolic scriptures as literally as the Torah, misses out on the teaching points the first century Jewish writers were making.
Shalom, Jeff.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Does God Love Rich People?
The story of Jesus and the rich young ruler is included in each of the first three Gospels.(Matt 19, Mark 10, Luke 18) In fact the teaching of how love of money can get into the way of faith is one of the preachers’ favorites. But is this story in the scripture really teaching against money?
Let’s look at the three versions and any difference between them. First, none of the three versions identify him as a rich man to start off. Luke does describe him as a ruler using a Greek word often used to describe the rulers of the synagogue or the Sanhedrin and Mark refers to him as young. As a ruler amongst the Jews, he would have been well schooled in the teachings of the rabbis. And because he is noted to be young, he has apparently excelled at the teachings. Sounds like Paul.
So what happens if we look at this story as if the man is godly?
The man comes to Jesus and asks what he needs to have eternal life. If he were a sincerely godly Jew of Jesus’ day, this scene makes perfect sense. Those who were eager to learn the proper walk were constantly questioning the rabbis. Even other rulers. This happened many times to Jesus including Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. If this man were anything but sincere, wouldn’t we have seen that in the reactions of the disciples? Instead they are shocked that Jesus seems to indicate that this man will not inherit eternal life. In fact they say if not this man, who then can be saved?
Another thing that points to his sincerity is the following verses :
Mar 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Mar 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him…
Jesus knew the heart of this man and loved him! He loved him because he knew the man was seeking to be the best follower of God that he could be.
So looked at this way we have the following scene. A godly man comes to Jesus and says what do I need to do to have eternal life and Jesus says keep the commandments. His response is that he has been keeping the commandments, so what else does he need to do? Jesus says to reach the next level he should sell everything he has and come be one of Jesus’ disciples.
This is where the story takes a turn. It says that he went away sad because he had great wealth and Jesus makes the comment that riches make it difficult to enter the kingdom of God. It is here that the disciples say how can we do it if he can’t? If the issue is greed, then why would the disciples worry that they can’t do it? In fact, Peter makes the statement:
Luk 18:28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.
Which we know cannot be talking about possessions because he still had his house and his fishing boat. So if not wealth itself, then what is the issue? One possible explanation is that the Greek words for wealth here describe "hard to sell" properties. I had some friends who decided to move to Fiji to work in a mission. It took them almost a year to “unwind” all of their commitments and sell their possessions. And they were not rich like this man! What if he was sad because Jesus had said that he needed to come with him now and that it would be difficult because of all of his possessions?
The following verses from Luke shows a similar situation:
Luk 9:57 And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
Luk 9:58 And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
Luk 9:59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Luk 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Luk 9:61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
Luk 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
These are not Jesus being uncaring, but his telling us to be in the position to drop everything and follow him. Like the Israelites were told to be ready to leave Egypt at a moments notice. We should never be so anchored in the world that we can follow him at a moments notice.
Finally we do not know that he did not do as instructed by Jesus. What if his name was Nicodemus or Joseph? Would that change how we think of this teachable moment with Jesus?
Maybe we need to rethink how we look at all of his parables and ask do we view them with the bias that was taught to us. I will end with a quote I discovered recently:
“No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions - he had money too!” — Margaret Thatcher
Shalom, Jeff.
Let’s look at the three versions and any difference between them. First, none of the three versions identify him as a rich man to start off. Luke does describe him as a ruler using a Greek word often used to describe the rulers of the synagogue or the Sanhedrin and Mark refers to him as young. As a ruler amongst the Jews, he would have been well schooled in the teachings of the rabbis. And because he is noted to be young, he has apparently excelled at the teachings. Sounds like Paul.
So what happens if we look at this story as if the man is godly?
The man comes to Jesus and asks what he needs to have eternal life. If he were a sincerely godly Jew of Jesus’ day, this scene makes perfect sense. Those who were eager to learn the proper walk were constantly questioning the rabbis. Even other rulers. This happened many times to Jesus including Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. If this man were anything but sincere, wouldn’t we have seen that in the reactions of the disciples? Instead they are shocked that Jesus seems to indicate that this man will not inherit eternal life. In fact they say if not this man, who then can be saved?
Another thing that points to his sincerity is the following verses :
Mar 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Mar 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him…
Jesus knew the heart of this man and loved him! He loved him because he knew the man was seeking to be the best follower of God that he could be.
So looked at this way we have the following scene. A godly man comes to Jesus and says what do I need to do to have eternal life and Jesus says keep the commandments. His response is that he has been keeping the commandments, so what else does he need to do? Jesus says to reach the next level he should sell everything he has and come be one of Jesus’ disciples.
This is where the story takes a turn. It says that he went away sad because he had great wealth and Jesus makes the comment that riches make it difficult to enter the kingdom of God. It is here that the disciples say how can we do it if he can’t? If the issue is greed, then why would the disciples worry that they can’t do it? In fact, Peter makes the statement:
Luk 18:28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.
Which we know cannot be talking about possessions because he still had his house and his fishing boat. So if not wealth itself, then what is the issue? One possible explanation is that the Greek words for wealth here describe "hard to sell" properties. I had some friends who decided to move to Fiji to work in a mission. It took them almost a year to “unwind” all of their commitments and sell their possessions. And they were not rich like this man! What if he was sad because Jesus had said that he needed to come with him now and that it would be difficult because of all of his possessions?
The following verses from Luke shows a similar situation:
Luk 9:57 And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
Luk 9:58 And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
Luk 9:59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Luk 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Luk 9:61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
Luk 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
These are not Jesus being uncaring, but his telling us to be in the position to drop everything and follow him. Like the Israelites were told to be ready to leave Egypt at a moments notice. We should never be so anchored in the world that we can follow him at a moments notice.
Finally we do not know that he did not do as instructed by Jesus. What if his name was Nicodemus or Joseph? Would that change how we think of this teachable moment with Jesus?
Maybe we need to rethink how we look at all of his parables and ask do we view them with the bias that was taught to us. I will end with a quote I discovered recently:
“No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions - he had money too!” — Margaret Thatcher
Shalom, Jeff.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Answering the Call
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
