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.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
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
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
