The B'rit Chadasha Pages

We've Moved

2010-07-05T21:33:00.003-04:00

We recently opened up a new blog, the Return of Benjamin. This new blog will combine discussions about the Messianic movement with teachings about Biblical prophecy and news items that happen to catch our attention. All of the posts from this site have been exported there for the sake of keeping it all together. We hope that you will join us there.

Shalom b'Shem Yeshua

The New Broken Branches

2008-02-19T08:47:00.004-05:00

From FrontPage Magazine:

Among the latest exploits of the United Methodist Women’s Division is a children’s book intended to instill anti-Israel themes among Methodist younsters. Innocuously called, “From Palestine to Seattle; Becoming Neighbors and Friends,” the booklet portrays Israel as an oppressor of Palestinians while omitting all mention of terrorism. It was written by Mary Davis, a former United Methodist missionary in “Palestine,” where she led “study tours,” whose political content no doubt was predictable.

One of the things this booklet tells teachers to ask their students is, “How would you feel if you were not allowed to visit a certain place?” Gee, I dunno, probably about the same as the millions of Jews who are denied access to the Temple Mount, our holiest site?

One of the discussions that Rabbi Gavriel and I have had frequently lately is the matter of the Christian Church (and here I'm using "Church" to refer to the whole cultural institution, not the Ekklesia of true followers of Messiah) being broken off from the Olive Tree:

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. (Rom. 11:17-21)

As I watch Christian groups like the UMC or the PCUSA divest themselves of and attack Israel, I note that it is the spiritually dead denominations that are the first to attack not only the broken branches, but the very root of the tree that they have been grafted into. Or perhaps I should say, that they at one time were grafted into. They have already given up Messiah in all but name (I think that quite a few will be among those who protest, "Lord, Lord, didn't we do all this stuff in Your Name?"), and the attacks on Israel are the symptom, not the cause, of a deep-rooted apostasy from the Scriptures.

Shalom

"Hey! Get That Ugly Thing Off My Mountain!"

2008-02-18T15:06:00.002-05:00

From Arutz Sheva:

An earthquake shook Israel at 12:37 PM Friday. The only damage reported in Israel was on the Temple Mount and near Shechem (Nablus).
The earthquake measured 5.3 on the Richter scale; its epicenter was located in northeastern Lebanon. Earlier last week an earthquake measuring 4.1 was felt in northern Israel, also originating from Lebanon, near its northern city of Tyre.
A large hole opened up on the Temple Mount during Friday's earthquake, which was soon covered by officials from the Wakf Islamic Authority that administers the mosques built atop Judaism’s holiest site.
The only other reported damage in the Holy Land was incurred between Palestinian Authority-controlled Shechem (Nablus) and Jenin, where an old home collapsed, blocking the main road to the village of Khufin. The village is not far from the site of the Biblical Joseph’s Tomb, which was set ablaze by Muslim vandals last week.

The My Right Word blog has the pictures. It's interesting that the PA is trying to blame Israel for the undermining, when they've been the ones undermining the Dome of the Rock for years while trying to remove all evidence of the Temples. I've been suspecting for years that sooner or later they'd accidentally bring the Dome down on themselves, and that naturally they'd blame Israel for it. Perhaps the Holy One is moving things along for us?

Shalom.

Updates to Hebrew Root

2008-02-17T14:04:00.002-05:00

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've posted another update to HebrewRoot. I've gotten caught up on the Parashah readings I've missed; I'll hopefully have another update to get current on Tuesday.

Shalom!

The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism

2008-01-25T10:57:00.000-05:00

The linked article is a must-read! The conclusion quoted below doesn't do justice to the amount of information (all carefully documented) that the article contains:

It is not, as Thomas Friedman argues in The World Is Flat, that the fruits of the American experiment—free markets, property rights, tolerance, democracy, and the rule of law—have left Islam behind. On the contrary, it is Islam that has opted out of progress by allowing, promoting, and embracing centuries of reactionary and retrospective reforms that rejected the idea that humans can indeed improve their condition through reason and rationality. Muslim clerics and leaders within the impoverished nations of the Islamic world need to understand that they are responsible for the condition and grief of their people. It is Islamism's rejection of religious tolerance, democracy, and the rule of law, in conjunction with its embrace of anti-Semitism, theocracy, and sectarian strongmen exempt from law and privileged by the authority they have usurped, that is the real enemy in the Islamic world's centuries-long interaction with the United States. While Islamists skillfully manipulate the Western mass media to enunciate an à la carte menu of grievances, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century interactions show these are not the root cause of jihadi terror. Indeed, a U.S. intelligence assessment, published two years before Israel's independence and any subsequent jihadi grievance, already highlighted Islamist terrorism as a long-term threat. So long as Western officials adopt a nearsighted, grievance-based view of the roots of Islamist terror, they will embolden jihadis through appeasement. . . .

Finally, the history of U.S. interaction with Muslim polities shows that "diplomacy backed by force" is the only effective approach to relations with them. Diplomacy is essential to ensure intentions are understood. Consistent diplomacy is essential to build the trust that majority Muslim countries need to support U.S. aims to advance Enlightenment ideals. Military weakness and the inability to project U.S. power have consistently led jihadis and Muslim kleptocrats to launch attacks against U.S. interests.

In other words, Islamic terrorism is nothing new, and it ultimately has nothing to do with Israel, other than making the Land a convenient scapegoat for Islam's violence and agenda of domination.

Shalom!

The Poster Awaiting Pres. Bush

2008-01-01T17:53:00.000-05:00

*chuckle* Happy New Year, everyone. I thought I'd start off the New Year by posting something humorous. From Israelnationalnews.com:

In the upcoming days, billboards all over Jerusalem will be plastered with a new poster on the eve of U.S. President Bush’s visit to Israel. Pictured in the poster is a gigantic Bible, towering over the walls of the Old City.

That kinda says it all, doesn't it.

Shalom!

Angels on the Head of a Pin

2007-12-28T14:54:00.000-05:00

JERUSALEM - Israeli scientists have inscribed the entire Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible onto a space less than half the size of a grain of sugar.
The nanotechnology experts at the Technion institute in Haifa say the text measures less than 0.01 square inch surface. They chose the Jewish Bible to highlight how vast quantities of information can be stored in minimum amounts of space.

I guess we'll finally be able to answer the age-old question. Just how many angels appear in the Tanakh, anyway?

Shalom!

The Importance of Religion As Well As "Spirituality"

2007-12-28T13:36:00.000-05:00

Touchstone has published an interesting article that needs to be shouted from the rooftops, as it punctures a particular conceit on the part of secularists. Some highlights:

A group of prominent social scientists from Princeton, Pennsylvania State, Baylor, and other institutions answered that question at a conference on “Religious Practice and Civic Life: What the Research Says.” The conference, held in Washington, D.C., in late October, was hosted by the Heritage Foundation and their research partners Child Trends and the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. . . .

Thus, Smith concludes: “Religious involvement is associated with, and probably promotes, civic engagement. . . . Those participating in a faith community are more likely to vote, belong to voluntary associations, and carry out altruistic acts than the nonreligious.”

The latter claim may seem presumptuous, but according to the 2002–2004 GSS, for every 100 altruistic acts—like giving blood or letting someone ahead of you in the checkout line—performed by nonreligious people, the religious perform 144. . . .
That is not what the data show. For nearly 40 years, psychologists and sociologists have studied the connection between religion and various negative outcomes in adolescents. According to one meta-study (a study of the studies), 97 percent of studies found a negative relationship between religion and sexual activity; 94 percent claimed a negative link between alcohol use and religion; and 87 percent alleged a negative correlation between suicide and religion.

One survey done by the University of Pittsburgh’s John Wallace, Jr., and his colleagues reports that when teenagers are asked whether they have smoked cigarettes, gone on a drinking binge, or smoked marijuana in the last 30 days, weekly-attending religious kids are twice as likely to report not having smoked or drunk heavily and are more than twice as likely to report not having used marijuana.
But religion affects behavior, Wallace maintains, not only at the individual level but also at the community level. The moral community in which students are immersed has an impact above and beyond that of personal religiosity.

Go read the article--and then bring up the actual facts the next time your friends launch on a tirade against "organized religion."

Shalom!

New Article on HebrewRoot

2007-12-12T11:34:00.000-05:00

There's a new article on HebrewRoot: Who Has the Authority? Hopefully, it will spark some interesting discussion in the Body of Messiah.

Shalom!

Mixed Traditions

2007-12-12T11:18:00.000-05:00

I was recently interviewed by the Gwinnett Daily Post for an article on families with split traditions. Anna was very nice, and the overall direction of the article is correct. There were a couple of quotes that came out awkward (like the one that said that I liked having the synagogue do all the decorating work--that's partially true, but I said it that way as a joke), and I do wish that she had written "Messiah" instead of "Christ," not because Christ is a dirty word, but because the connotation is different.

But it did give me a chance to honor my parents, who have been extremely supportive these last few years in my calling to a Messianic Jewish lifestyle. And it is that theme of honor that I'd like to touch on for a moment.

Messianics often find this time of year difficult. Most of us were raised on Christmas and have family who still celebrate it, but are distinctly uncomfortable with the pagan symbolism that has been carelessly mixed with the theme of the Messiah's birth (mistletoe, yule logs, decorated trees, etc.). How do we associate with our families during these times without feeling like we are betraying our spiritual convictions?

In answer, let us remember two important keys: 1) Yeshua put loving our neighbor (which definitely includes our families) just behind loving God in importance, and 2) the rabbis have always understood the command to honor our parents to reflect an honor of the God who put them over us. They have actually written that it is impossible to do one without the other.

So then, while Christmas no longer has any significance for me, it does for my parents. It is incumbent for me therefore to honor them if not the day. So on Christmas morning, I will be over at their house to exchange gifts (our gift to each other this year is a trip to Israel in April) and to have Christmas dinner together. I will enjoy their love and fellowship, and let them enjoy mine without mocking their dearly-held traditions. Discussions on the scripturalness (or lack thereof) about the holiday can wait for another time.

I'm not saying that we should compromise our beliefs, but that we should let love cover a multitude of sins.

Shalom!

The Once and Future Antiochus

2007-12-11T22:48:00.000-05:00

Here on the last and most joyous day of Hanukkah it's fitting to look forward as well as back, to the future persecution that the past one prefigures.

When four of His talmidim came to Him to ask about the time of His Second Coming, Yeshua spoke of false messiahs, wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes, and then of a worldwide persecution of His people. He tells us the event that would spark off this persecution:

Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.

For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. (Mat. 24:15-22)

Here the Master refers to two key events prophesied by Daniel: The Abomination of Desolation (Dan. 9:27, 11:31) and the Great Tribulation (Dan. 12:1). The important thing to realize is that the passages in question had already been fulfilled by Antiochus Epimanes.

They had already been fulfilled, and they will be fulfilled again.

The key to Biblical prophecy is to understand that it is about pattern, not just prediction. Recognizing this puts aside the often venomous debates about, for example, whether the Olivet Discourse is a prophecy of the Second Coming or of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The answer, as to the question of whether the Abomination referred to Antiochus or to a future desecration of the Temple, is both.

There is another link between Hanukkah and the End Time Antiochus. Daniel 12:11-12 says, "From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!" These two numbers are unique in the prophecies, which usually measure the last period as 3 1/2 "times" (roughly years), 42 months, or 1260 days--thus, the prophecy here speaks of two events 30 days and 75 days after the end of the Seventieth Week.

There is a strong indication in Scripture that the Seventieth Week of Daniel's prophecy will end on Yom Kippur. Hanukkah just so happens to come about 75 days after Yom Kippur. It is no stretch to suppose that just as the Temple was cleansed and rededicated on Hanukkah over two millennia ago, it will be again in a Hanukkah yet to come.

And when that day comes, those who see it will surely be called blessed.

Shalom!

Hanukkah: Particularly Happy for Messianic Jews

2007-12-05T10:47:00.000-05:00

Today marks the first day of Hanukkah, which celebrates the cleansing of the Temple after its desecration by Antiochus Epimanes ("the Madman," a somewhat better title than "Epiphanes," methinks). Though it's not a Biblically mandated Feast, it is mentioned in the New Testament (John 10:22), and since it is not expressly mentioned that Yeshua eschewed it, it's safe to say that He celebrated Hanukkah along with everyone else in Jerusalem.

I've occasionally been challenged for keeping Hanukkah instead of Christmas, usually on the basis that it's purely tradition, having no Biblical mandate. And it's true, there isn't a specific Biblical command, but nevertheless, Hanukkah has become very dear to me.

Why? you ask. Simple: Because it celebrates the successful resistance of the Jews to forced Hellenization. Even though God had not sent a prophet in many years, nevertheless He remembered His covenant with the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and gave them victory against overwhelming odds.

It truly breaks my heart that for so many centuries, the Church actually stood in the place of Antiochus, demanding that Jews who wanted to follow the Jewish Messiah to give up everything Jewish, and become functional Greeks instead. And though at times the persecution of a perverted state-church was nearly unbearable, still my people hung onto their identity and their dedication to the Torah of God.

Ironically, it is only because the Jewish people as a whole rejected this false image of Christ and resisted assimilation that the prophetic Scriptures have not been broken. Later in the week, I'll explain a particular end-time prophecy that actually points to Hanukkah as its fulfillment.

Until then, Happy Hanukkah, and for my Sunday brethren, Merry Christmas.

Shalom.

A Response to Rabbi Singer re: Yoma 39b

2007-11-24T21:05:00.000-05:00

By Rabbi Gavri’el Moreno-Bryars and Michael Bugg

An item recently came to our attention that it seemed beneficial to respond to. Rabbi Singer, a well-known anti-missionary, recently responded to a question regarding a proof that many Christian and Messianic teachers have recently begun using from the Talmud. The quote in question comes from b. Yoma 39b, and reads as follows (Neusner’s translation):

Forty years before the destruction of the sanctuary, the lot did not come up in the right hand, and the thread of crimson never turned white, and the westernmost light never shone, and the doors of the courtyard would open by themselves, until Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai rebuked them. He said, “Temple, Temple, why will you yourself give the alarm [that you are going to be destroyed? You don’t have to, because] I know that in the end you are destined to be destroyed. For Zechariah b. Eido has already prophesied concerning you: ‘Open your doors, Lebanon, that fire may devour your cedars’ (Zec. 11: 1).”

The “thread of crimson” refers to a custom that when the Yom Kippur sacrifice was made, the goat for Azazel (the “scapegoat”; cf. Lev. 16 for the ceremony) would have a scarlet ribbon tied in its horns. If Adonai accepted the sacrifice, the ribbon would miraculously turn white—as Rabbi Singer correctly points out, this sign points to Isa. 1:16-20:

"Wash yourselves clean! Get your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing evil, learn to do good! Seek justice, relieve the oppressed, defend orphans, plead for the widow. "Come now," says Adonai, "let's talk this over together. Even if your sins are like scarlet, they will be white as snow; even if they are red as crimson, they will be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you will be eaten by the sword"; for the mouth of Adonai has spoken. (CJB, which is based on the JPS Tanakh)

As Rabbi Singer states, many Christians see this rejection of the Yom Kippur sacrifice for the forty years separating the Cross and the destruction of the Temple as proof “that God was no longer accepting animal sacrifices, and the Jewish people, therefore, needed to turn to Jesus as their only avenue for atonement . . . [and] that the sins of the Jews were not forgiven because they did not accept Jesus as their messiah.”

Using the Talmud

Rabbi Singer, of course, rejects this view outright. In fact, he spends two pages (as counted by MS Word) engaging in a type of “argument by outrage” that a Christian would dare to appeal to the Talmud for proof of their beliefs. He calls it a “schizophrenic technique” that on the one hand “evangelicals fervently insist that the written Bible alone is reliable and divinely inspired and often scornfully mock traditional Jews as practicing a ‘rabbinic Judaism,’” while on the other, “whenever missionaries feel the urge to advance their position by quoting from the Talmud, they undergo a spontaneous conversion . . .“

Since Rabbi Singer attacks the very idea of Christians referring to the Talmud at length before getting to the meat of the interpretation, let us take a moment and ask, “Is it really illegitimate to refer to the Talmud as a historical source without admitting its Divine inspiration?” Would Rabbi Singer consider it equally illegitimate for a Christian (or a Jew) to refer to the histories of Josephus, Eusebius, or Tacitus, since we also reject the idea that they are inspired? Does Rabbi Singer also reject referring to the books of the Maccabees in making a study of Hanukkah—or for that matter, referring to the Renewed Covenant (New Testament) or other Christian writings when making an argument against Yeshua? I somewhat doubt it. The energy he devotes to arousing the indignation of his traditional Jewish readers against Christian and/or Messianic Jewish apologists is therefore misplaced, contributing nothing to the discussion but to further prejudice his audience.

His ire thus raised (and given the “convert and assimilate” attitude of the majority of Christian missions to the Jews, we completely understand that irritation), he goes on to engage in a bit of reflexive opposition:

Citing the above statement, missionaries contend that the year the scarlet ribbon ceased to turn white coincides with the time that Jesus was crucified. They go on to insist that 40 years prior to the destruction of the second Temple corresponds to the year 30 C.E., which is approximately the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

Missionaries “contend” that the year the ribbon ceased to turn white coincides with the time Yeshua was crucified? They “go on to insist” that 40 years prior to the destruction of the Temple equals 30 CE? Why does Rabbi Singer require such qualifiers? The dates are not a matter of dispute, so why use language implying a valid uncertainty rather than simply arguing for coincidence without correspondence? If he cannot refer to even such a matter without using prejudicial language, Rabbi Singer is clearly falling into the trap of reflexively saying the sky is green when the other side calls it blue.

The point here is not to make fun of Rabbi Singer, who is a very learned man with a great zeal for the Eternal One and his people. The point is to demonstrate that just as the Christian missionaries have an ideological axe to grind when they quote Yoma 39b without explanation or qualification, so does Rabbi Singer.

With that in mind, let us look into the actual passage in question. Rabbi Singer raises two valid objections to the common Christian argument from this passage: 1) That it ignores the context, which indicates a slow degradation rather than a sudden cessation, and 2) that even evangelicals expect a return to the sacrificial system based on Ezekiel 40-48, so the issue could not be that sacrifices were no longer valid. However, while these are valid objections, it is our opinion that they do not seriously afflict the apologetic value of this passage for the followers of Yeshua.

The Context

Shim’on HaTzaddik (Simeon the Righteous) was the Cohen HaGadol, or High Priest, over Israel in the beginning of the 3^rd Century BCE. He is one of the most famous figures in Jewish history, representing the high point of the Second Temple priesthood, when the Eternal One blessed the Temple and priesthood and the sacrifice was always accepted and always gave a good omen (the lot for Adonai coming up in the right hand). It is no surprise, then, that the Talmud portrays a loss of this level of blessing after Shim’on HaTzaddik’s death.

And indeed, such a view is completely consistent with the NT view. The authors of the Renewed Covenant certainly did not regard everything in the Temple as in keeping with the Eternal One’s intent up to the point that Yeshua HaMashiach died on the Cross. We see, for example, Yeshua chasing out the moneychangers and merchants with a whip—twice (John 2:14-17, Mat. 21:12-13)! We also see the plot against Yeshua being motivated by fear (John 11:48) and jealousy (Mat. 27:18). In short, we see Jerusalem’s leadership affected by the very “spiritual decay” and “self-destructive . . . interpersonal baseless hatred that was pervasive among the Jewish people during this difficult time” that Rabbi Singer sees.

Yet the Talmud does not speak of a gradually-decreasing glory in the Temple. It says only that after Shim’on HaTzaddik’s death, sometimes the miracles associated with his life still happened, and sometimes they did not. But about 30 CE, something abruptly changed: Not only was the Yom Kippur sacrifice never again accepted (a “mere” withdrawal of a miraculous sign), but the western light on the Menorah actively went out and the doors actively swung open. Josephus (Wars, 6.5.3) records other signs that happened as well. Though he does not record when they began, he mentions the doors of the sanctuary swinging open on their own, so we may surmise that he was referring to the same forty-year period.

What is the point of all this? The point is that it wasn’t simply that the Eternal One had ceased to perform the miracles that He had in the days of Shim’on HaTzaddik—He was actively performing miraculous signs as a warning call to Israel, beginning 40 years before the Temple’s destruction.

Why 40 years? What happened at that time that brought God’s judgment to the tipping point? In the Torah, God tested and judged Israel for 40 years after they sinned by not going into the Land of His Promise, bringing about one generation’s end so that another generation could enter that Promise. And while there were many sins that Israel committed on the way, there was a final and specific sin that resulted in that judgment: They did not trust the One who had Redeemed them in the face of the Anakim. What then was the specific sin among the many that caused God to reject Israel’s sacrifices for forty years, culminating in the destruction of that generation?

Gratuitous Hatred and Yeshua’s Death

Let us consider the Talmud’s answer. Yoma 9b seeks to explain why the Second Temple was destroyed, even though it had not fallen into the idolatry of the First Temple and the study of Torah was widespread in Israel:

But as to the second sanctuary, in which the people were engaged in Torah and practice of the commandments and acts of loving kindness, on what account was it destroyed? It was because of gratuitous hatred. That fact serves to teach you: gratuitous hatred weighs in the balance against the three cardinal sins of idolatry, fornication, and murder.

To the Messianic or Christian, this brings to mind Yeshua’s words on the eve of His crucifixion,

I command these things to you, that you may love one another. If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. . . . But this happened so that the word may be fulfilled which was written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause.” (John 15:17-19, 25, citing Psa. 35:19, 69:4)

What if, we ask, the general rise of gratuitous hatred in Israel culminated and focused in a hatred of the One whom the God of Israel sent “to proclaim good news to the humble. . . to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to those who are bound; [and] to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor” (Isa. 61:1-2)?

Even many traditional Jews are recognizing Yeshua as a great rabbi, if not (yet) the Messiah. Dr. Pinchas Lapide, an Orthodox scholar, for example writes,

Jesus was utterly true to the Torah, as I myself hope to be. I even suspect that Jesus was even more true to the Torah than I, an Orthodox Jew. (The Resurrection of Jesus)

Interestingly, Lapide accepts the Resurrection as a historical fact, a true miracle of God, though he disagrees that this miracle proves Yeshua to be the Messiah of Israel. Likewise, Jewish scholar Stephen M. Wylen writes,

It then becomes apparent that Jesus was in some ways an innovator who taught new ideas or extended old ideas into new territory, while in other ways Jesus followed the Jewish teachings of his times. Generally speaking, Jesus’ teachings can be placed in the broad context of first century Judaism in its many manifestations. (The Jews in the Time of Jesus, p. 13)

Wylen goes on to surmise that Yeshua was put on trial and executed not because of any religious blasphemy, but because “Caiphas and Pilate believed Jesus either intended an insurrection, or else would be the cause of one,” possibly because of his action in driving the money-lenders from the Temple (pp. 128f).

The conclusion of the historians: Jesus was killed by some Romans and some Jews, a conspiracy between the homegrown and imperial rulers of the country, in order to keep the peace during the Passover holiday. (ibid.)

Yet the Gospel accounts make it clear that Yeshua led no insurrection, even making an argument for paying taxes to Caesar (Mat. 22:21). Moreover, the Sadducees set up a crowd to call for the release of a known insurrectionist rather than see Pilate let Yeshua go (Mark 15:11), so clearly more than a concern for peace with Rome was at stake for them. Note that the “sympathetic” Pilate that many believe they see in Pilate doesn’t match up with what we know from secular history—but a Pilate who realized that he was being used as the hatchet-man in what was essentially a religious dispute and as a result pushed back against the Sadducees’ pressures is (cf. Mat. 27:18)!

The Mishnah (Makkot 1:10) tells us,

A sanhedrin which imposes the death penalty once in seven years is called murderous. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “Once in seventy years.”. R. Tarfon and R. Aqiba say, “If we were on a sanhedrin, no one would ever be put to death.”

The Gemara of this passage goes on to describe the very great lengths the Sanhedron would go to in order to avoid a sentence of death, including finding every possible way of disqualifying the eyewitnesses (a parallel can be found in John 8:1-11, where Yeshua uses precisely this method). This distaste for the death penalty was greatly increased by the fact of the Roman occupation: It was considered incredibly shameful to turn a brother Jew over to pagans to be slain.

Now consider the hatred focused on this one man, a man who modern Jewish (and Christian) scholars are more and more recognizing taught from the Torah within the bounds of the traditional Judaism of His day—leaning, in fact, towards the teachings of R. Hillel. What cause had Yeshua given the leaders of Israel to hate Him and call for His death, even handing Him over to the pagans? He taught repentance rather than revolution, the love of God and our fellow man, and never, ever taught anyone to practice idolatry or to abandon the Torah (cf. Deu. 12:32-13:5 [13:1-6]). Where He claimed to be the Messiah and Savior of Israel, He did so by His deeds rather than by His words—and his deeds were to raise the dead, heal the lepers, bring sight to those born blind, and cast out the deaf-mute spirits.

To slay one who brought about great weal to the Jewish public by the finger of God out of envy and fear would certainly qualify as “gratuitous hatred.”

The End of Sacrifice?

However, Rabbi Singer is right and the Christian missionaries he contends with are wrong in one very important aspect: The rejection of the Yom Kippur sacrifice was by no means proof that God had “taken away” the sacrificial system or the Levitical priesthood. Aside from the prophecies of Ezekiel (which Evangelicals widely acknowledge to refer to a future restoration of the Levitial priesthood), there are numerous proofs from the Scriptures—both in the Tanakh and the Renewed Covenant—that while the priesthood and Temple service were taken away as punishment for Israel’s sins, they were not simply discontinued for all time because of Yeshua’s ultimate Sacrifice on the Cross:

The descendants of Phinehas were given “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Num. 25:13).
Jer. 33:15-22 states that just as “David shall never want a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,” neither will “the priests the Levites want a man before me to . . . do sacrifice continually.” But where David’s promise is spoken of as a singular man, the Branch, the Messiah, the Levitical priests are spoken of in the plural in vv. 21-22. Hence, Christians and Messianics who believe that the Messiah’s office is an eternal one must acknowledge that the Levitial priesthood is likewise eternal.
The disciples of Yeshua did not immediately break from the Temple; on the contrary, they went “[d]ay by day continuing with one mind in the Temple” (Acts 2:46, cf. 3:2). To worship in the Temple meant participating in the daily sacrifices; therefore, if they had truly believed that Yeshua’s Sacrifice ended and forbade all future sacrifices, they would have withdrawn from the Temple services as the Essenes, who merely saw the Temple as corrupt, did.
In Acts 21:18-26, we see Rabbi Sha’ul, the student of Gamaliel, better known to the world as the Apostle Paul, facing accusations that he was teaching Jewish believers in Yeshua to no longer circumcise their sons (i.e., raise them to be Jewish) and to no longer keep the Torah and the traditions. In order to refute that charge, he takes a voluntary Nazrite vow with four other Messianic Jews—note that these four were already under a vow, meaning that such things were not unusual in the Messiah’s early Assembly—and to pay for the requisite sacrifices that were required to shave their heads. Clearly, they did not see a problem with continuing to make sacrifices some thirty years after the Messiah’s crucifixion.

However, while the rejection of the Yom Kippur sacrifice is not, as many Christians suppose, a sign that God had brought the Levitical priesthood to a permanent end, it does point us to an important aspect of the Messiah’s mission. Psalm 110:4 speaks of one who would be like Melchizedek, both a king and a priest, and Zec. 6:12-13 tells us that the Branch, the Messiah, “will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”

ADONAI slew Aaron’s two sons for the sin of offering unauthorized fire (Lev. 10:1-2). If He did not accept an unauthorized form of worship from authorized priests, might we suppose that He would also reject an authorized sacrifice by an unauthorized priest, especially those who were complicit in rejecting and putting to death the king-priest that He had sent to call Israel to repentance and offer the true Atonement for their sins?

Likewise, God took away the sacrifice in the days of Jeremiah because the people had gone to other gods, resulting in hatred, murder, fornication, and injustice. Would He not also take away the sacrifice if Israel, following a corrupt leadership, rejected Him as King in the person of the Messiah in order to curry favor with the kings of the pagans, as a result of and resulting in even more hatred, murder, fornication, and injustice?

Rabbi Singer makes another crucial error when he writes, “Isaiah loudly declares that charity and acts of kindness alone atone for man's most grievous sins, as he repeatedly and resoundingly trivializes the blood sacrificial system as an efficacious means for atonement” (emphasis mine). Isaiah says no such thing, nor could he, for “the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement” (Lev. 17:11). Rather, the prophet is simply affirming the truth of Num. 15:26-30, that the sacrifices were useless to atone for those still actively sinning against God’s commandments, for the sacrifices could only be offered for one who sinned unintentionally, out of ignorance or weakness, not those who sinned “with a high hand.”

In other words, Isaiah didn’t call for more sacrifices because the sacrifices were already being made; he was calling for repentance resulting in social justice so that the Blessed One would accept the sacrifices!

This Biblical truth, that it takes blood-sacrifice to atone for sin, has been set aside by the rabbis since the destruction of the Temple. However, the Torah is clear that unless the Eternal One provides an atoning Sacrifice, our good deeds could never save us or atone for us, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment” (Isa. 64:6).

The issue was not that Israel continued to sacrifice in obedience to the Torah, but that they were not putting their trust in the correct Sacrifice, nor were they repenting of their sins, including the gratuitous hatred towards the One God had sent to them.

Conclusion

There is no denying that the Talmud puts the final rejection of the Yom Kippur sacrifice at forty years before the fall of the Temple, and there is no denying that Yeshua was crucified at about that same time. The only subjects open to debate are how we interpret that correspondence: Was it simply coincidence, or was the God of Israel sending a message to His people?

We have seen that while the Talmud does indeed indicate a spiritual decline after the time of Shim’on HaTzaddik, it also marks a definite point at which God not only withdrew a miraculous sign, but in which He sent miraculous signs warning of His impending judgment. This definite point corresponds to the execution of Yeshua. It is not enough to just claim a coincidence; if not the rejection of the Messiah, exactly why did God choose that exact time to begin actively and consistently warning Israel of the impending judgment?

We have seen that the rabbinic explanation for the destruction of the Second Temple, that of gratuitous hatred, finds its focus and full measure on the gratuitous hatred Israel’s leaders, the Sadducees in particular, held against Yeshua.

And we have seen that the reason the Yom Kippur sacrifice was rejected was not that God had discarded the sacrificial system per se, but that Israel had once again rejected her proper King in favor of pagan lords—a King who was also a Priest.

Rabbi Singer is correct when he says that most Christians who latch onto Yoma 39b do so without an appreciation for its proper context, and that God’s rejection of the Temple sacrifices because of Israel’s sins does not mean that Yeshua’s Sacrifice was meant to bring all others to an end. However, he does not even attempt to demonstrate what other event, if not the rejection of Yeshua, might have caused God to actively work against the Temple service circa 30 CE.

As much as we disagree with Rabbi Singer’s treatment of Yoma 39b, we agree with his closing statements. We live in a day and age when the whole world seems to be gathering against the people of the God of Abraham, both Jew and Christian, and yet in so many quarters we continue to tear each other apart. As Messianic Hebrews, we repent of the hatred so many of our physical and spiritual ancestors have shown to our Jewish brothers and sisters in the past, and affirm again our love for and support of Israel. To that end, if any of our words to and/or about Rabbi Singer in this article have been unintentionally harsh, we beg the reader’s forgiveness and understanding.

We also repent of the hatred that has so often flared between brothers and sisters in the Messiah, whether we call ourselves Messianics or Christians, and call for a renewed commitment to love, humility, righteousness, and charity as we struggle with the issues, both in and out of the Body, which are facing us in the 21^st Century.

Shalom!

A Correction With Apologies

2007-10-18T08:36:00.000-04:00

In one of my articles against SeekGod.ca, I originally referred to Mark Nanos here as being Messianic; he is not, but rather is a Reform Jew who believes that the misrepresentation of Paul's view has been extremely harmful to the Jewish people--and he's right. My apologies to him for the accidental misrepresentation on my part.

A Much Belated High Holy Day Post

2007-09-29T22:23:00.000-04:00

Okay, I've really got to apologize here. I seem to be doing a lot of that recently in RL.

We all have our flaws; my principle ones are in time-management (or lack thereof)--particularly procrastination. Despite being well-aware that this time of year (and Passover, on the other side of the year) are so busy for me that I find it difficult to find the time to write blog entries. This is especially true this year, when I have only limited web access. Yet I did not take the time to write up my entries for the High Holy Days in advance.

This time of year is a time of repentence, of turning back from our sins, whether major sins against God's commandments or sins of simple bad habits. So let me take the opportunity to repent now of my procrastinating ways, to get ahead on my writing and studies as well on my other work.

So then, let me finish this all-too-brief post by saying Happy Birthday to my Lord Yeshua!

Shalom!

A Ping From CNN

2007-08-21T23:42:00.000-04:00

Not bad. CNN.com has run a story called "Christians, Jews in Holy Land Alliance." It's not an in-depth piece, but it talks about the advent of Messianic Judaism as well as having the usual boilerplate about Evangelical support for Israel. To quote a few highlights:

Sondra Oster Baras is an Orthodox Jew doing an unorthodox job.
"If you had asked me 10 years ago what I would be doing with my life, I don't think I would have told you I'd be in church," she said.
Baras stumps for money from evangelical Christians to support Jewish settlements in the occupied territories -- land she calls biblical Israel.
A recent stop finds her in Melbourne, Florida, visiting Pastor Gary Christofaro at his First Assembly Church of God.
Christofaro and his flock take their Jewish roots so seriously that on Friday nights they observe the Jewish Sabbath with Hebrew prayers.
This is not just religious ritual. They support Israel -- which to them includes Jewish settlements on the occupied West Bank. Church members tour settlements with Baras and have donated more than a $100,000 to support them. . . .
"I was never fully American," she explained. "I was Jewish." Judaism was not only her religion but also her nationality.
"We learned how to read Hebrew before we learned how to read English," she said.
Her parents, who narrowly escaped the Holocaust, sent her to Zionist summer camps that championed the Jewish homeland.
"My parents felt very safe in America ... but there was always a part of them that said there needs to be an Israel in the event that we have another Hitler. Put it all together and I couldn't help but be a Zionist."

Amen.

This blog got linked in the "From the Blogs" section at the bottom for my post last night about dinner with Eli. Woot for us!

In the course of trying to find the link that was pinging this blog, however, I happened to go through the comments section. I find it extremely sad how many Americans have swallowed the tripe that the Jews "stole" Palestine. For the record, the Jews bought large tracts of that land up legitimately (and at exorbitant prices) in the centuries leading up to 1948, and when they declared their independence from Britain(!), not from Palestine (which never existed as an independent nation), they allowed those Arabs who were willing to join them to have their full rights as citizens, including representation in the Knesset.

The fact that the Arab population of Israel has representation in the government puts the lie to every claim that the Jews are oppressing the Palestinians. The only ones being "oppressed" are those who have built their entire being on wanting Israel destroyed and the Jews driven into the sea.

The second thing that saddened me was the comments from some of my Christian brethren. Guys, exactly what good does it do to tell perfect strangers that they're going to Hell unless they agree with you? If you can't present the Gospel with at least a mustard seed of diplomacy and (outward) love, then please shut up and stop putting stumbling blocks in peoples' paths.

Shalom!

Dinner With An Israeli

2007-08-20T22:37:00.000-04:00

Last night I had the opportunity to have dinner with an Israeli gentleman, Orthodox by upbringing and faith, named Eliyahu (Eli for short) at my SO's house. The conversation was incredible! He's very intelligent and well-educated, and we ranged from history to evolution vs. creation to the nature of faith to politics.

The latter was particularly thought-provoking. At one point, he was talking about watching the preachers on TBN and said of Jack Van Impe in particular, "You know he's crazy." Did I mention that I love the man's bluntness?

"But he supports Israel," my SO's mother said, not so in love with the bluntness.

"Oh I know. And I tell you, anyone who is for Israel, no matter what their reasons, G-d bless them! I will happily accept their support. But Jack Van Impe, you know, he only supports Israel because he thinks we fit into his prophetic expectations. He's looking forward to all of the Christians getting Raptured up and leaving us to face the Russian tanks." (Referring to Van Impe's view of the Magog invasion of Ezk. 38-19.)

He went on to explain that he would much rather have people support Israel on the basis that it is the only democracy and pro-Western state in the Middle-east, because that's a fact that isn't going to change, while he sees support withering and dying when the popular belief in Dispensationalism dries up.

Frankly, just on a practical level, he's right. Leaving aside the issue of whether Premillennialism and/or Dispensationalism are correct (I think Premill is, though I have major differences of opinion with my Dispensationalist brethren, especially about the timing of the Rapture), the fact is that should the L-RD Yeshua tarry His Coming, it is entirely possible that popular support for the view--and the corresponding popular support for Israel--will fade away. Certainly it is true that various forms of amillennialism are on the ascent again.

But rather than base our support for Israel purely on an equally vapid political situation--after all, that makes it all too easy for support for Israel to dry up if they don't do everything Politically Correct in our eyes--let me suggest a better reason for American Christians to support Israel: The Jews there are our brothers and sisters.

Messianic Judaism arose because of a realization that Yeshua and His Apostles never wanted to create a new and distinctly Gentile religion called Christianity, but that they were all Jews through-and-through. We therefore see their struggles with "the Jews" in Scripture not as two competing religions, but as an argument within a family, much as a Baptist and a Presbyterian might argue about theology while recognizing each other as brother Christians. That means, by extension, that we who are the inheritors of the legacy of a Jewish Messiah and Jewish Apostles must view the Jews likewise--not as "them," but as "us."

I pray that the increasing appreciation for the Hebrew Root will continue to spread throughout the Body of Messiah, because then our support for Israel will not be based on a prophetic fad, but on solid history and kinship--and you don't let someone mess with your family.

Shalom!

On Knowledge in the Tanakh

2007-08-16T21:26:00.000-04:00

The following was written as an answer to an inquiry received by our ministry. It's a bit outside of our normal purview, but I thought I'd post it here. The question was in regards to the word "knowledge" in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and whether it was significant that "knowledge" rather than "discernment" was used.

The name of the tree in question, in Hebrew, is Eytz haDa’ath Tov v’Ra’ (עצ הדעת טוב ורע), with da’ath being the word for knowledge (Strongs #1847). Da’ath is actually a fairly common word, appearing 92 times in the Tanakh. Of those 92 times, it is translated “knowledge” 81 times in the NASB and 80 times in the KJV. Of the other uses of the word (going from the NASB, which is easier to search for hits with my current tools), it is used to mean concern (1), know (3), premeditation/ intentionally (4), skill (1), truth (1), what (1). Of the four times it refers to premeditation or intentionally, two are with a negative participle (that is, “unintentionally”).

In all cases, the word simply refers to conscious knowledge of a matter. If you are interested in Hebrew root words, the root of da’ath is da’ (דע), which literally means “door of the eye”—the eyes being the principle way in which humans gain knowledge about the world. The equivalent Greek word, used in the Septuagint translation, is gnooston (γνωστον, Strongs #1110), from gnosis, or knowledge. Lest anyone try to draw a connection between that and Gnosticism, I should point out that the word has no negative context in and of itself, appearing in various conjugations 15 times in the NT to mean simply something known.

Indeed, the Scriptures are overwhelmingly positive about Man having da’ath, particularly in the Proverbs. It is often paired with the ideas of wisdom (cf. Exo. 31:3, Ecc. 7:12) and self-discipline (Pro. 12:1 and 17:27). Outside of the narrative of the Fall, the worse the Bible has to say of it is that an increase of knowledge can bring one pain (Ecc. 1:18)—of course, given the genre of Ecclesiastes, perhaps we should consider that to mean knowledge outside of the Eternal One’s.

I’ve given you the Strong’s numbers so that you can double-check my research. However, I have to say that “knowledge” really is the best translation of the idea of da’ath. Given the overwhelmingly positive view the Bible takes of real knowledge, I would suggest that if anything, we can understand this passage to teach that the knowledge of good and evil were not sinful per se, but rather that the avenue that Adam and Havah took (disobedience to the Father’s clear command) in pursuit of this knowledge is the reason behind the Fall.

In other words, the ends—however noble—do not justify the means of disobeying ADONAI.

Shalom!

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 6

2007-08-08T15:47:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm back. I've finished moving into the new house, with the exception of a couple of pieces of furniture which I will get next week, and a few dozen boxes of books to be put back on the shelves. So let's return to our regularly-scheduled blogging:

The purpose of this article is to defend Messianic Judaism against what I believe to be an unfair and unscriptural attack. While this of necessity requires a certain amount of “counter-attack,” I will try to keep the focus on the arguments rather than the person, though some comments about Vicki’s general tendencies in her writings are necessary.

To Embrace Hebrew Roots: Part II
The Bible & The Talmud

Vicki begins her section on the Talmud with a personal note, expressing her love for those she in her article argues against despite finding ”material that I have found disturbing.” She goes on to say, “What I feel very strongly is that all the issues addressed were dealt with at the cross. Truly, His grace is sufficient.” Very true; however, the Hebrew Roots and Messianic movements have never been about overturning a belief in salvation by faith (though we would argue, as would Vicki, that faith without works is dead, per Jas. 2:17; cf. Eph. 2:8-10)—it is about how we who are already saved should now live. To repeat the mantra I am trying to promote throughout the Messianic world: I do not try to keep the Torah in order to be saved; I follow the Torah because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way.

Vicki next writes,

What I do have, is a strong sense or desire to see deceptions--regardless of who propagates them--exposed. This issue is very large and complex. Not all that is said about one group's views can necessarily be applied to all.

Now this is an amazing admission, since her previous section did indeed take “one group’s views” and apply them to all Messianics, and did so several times, at that! It is also surprising to see her admit the complexity of the issue, as she is about to take a very large, complex set of documents, the Talmud, and try to reduce it to a handful of distasteful passages without regard to the historical or cultural context, or even a fair comparison to Christian writings from the same period. I shall demonstrate this as we proceed.

Let me start out with a warning, however: As my own writings on the subject indicate, I am not one who regards the Talmud as holy, though I do think that it is useful in understanding 1^st Century Judaism, the crucible that forged what we today call Christianity, and I do find the rabbis’ understandings of certain passages and concepts to be extremely insightful and thought-provoking, especially when we see the parallels in their beliefs and a New Covenant belief. I also believe that a Messianic Jewish believer living in a Jewish community is as bound to follow the authorities of that community, the rabbis, as we are bound to follow the authorities of our country, state, etc.

However, I would be the first to admit that there is much material in the Talmud that is frankly wrong and embarrassing; I would also be the first to admit the same of the great body of Christian writings through the centuries. In both cases, one must learn to understand the text in its original context, then to chew up the meat and spit out the bones.

With that in mind, let us look at Vicki’s claims about the Talmud and its relationship with Messianic Judaism and the Hebrew Roots movement.

Overview

Vicki’s overview is just that, and overview, and does not contain enough information for the first several paragraphs to dispute; she is simply framing her argument. She then writes of her intent,

[This section] evaluates the need for Midrash, Mishnah, Haggadah, Halakah, and the use of the "Ancient Wisdom" versus the teaching of the New Testament and the sufficiency of Scripture with the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

First of all, on what basis are the two necessarily opposed? She argues in favor of the Received Text—but does the Bible itself speak of the RT? No; rather, Vicki is the beneficiary of centuries of “ancient wisdom”—tradition and scholarship—in reconstructing the Koine Greek of the NT (and the Hebrew of the Tanakh), and even in knowing which books to include in the Bible!

And let’s look at what she’s arguing against here:

Midrash – this just means “teaching” or “delving”; is Vicki claiming to have never received teaching about the Bible from extra-Biblical sources?
Halakhah & Mishnah – literally translated, halakhah is “the way you walk,” this is how the rabbis understood how to apply God’s commandments to our lives. The Mishneh is the compilation of the 2^nd Century rabbis’ halakhah. Does Vicki refuse all discussion on the proper application of God’s commands in our lives?
Haggadah – this is simply the “order of service” for a Passover Seder. Is Vicki against all orders of service in all churches everywhere?

When we get past all of the Hebraisms, we find that there are parallels in Christian teaching to virtually every aspect of Jewish interpretation. Consider the long-standing debates on the proper way to baptize, the proper description of the Trinity, whether one can drink or smoke, etc. before we condemn the rabbis for having the same sorts of discussions on their side. Therefore, Vicki cannot object to the fact of such interpretive methods and applications; she can only object to the form—in this case, a distinctly Jewish form. But is it really illegitimate to refer to Jewish sources as well as Hellenized (Christian) sources in understanding the Scriptures? On what basis? Should we not consider a culture’s language, idioms, practices, etc., in understanding such an important Book from that culture?

If Vicki is so certain that the Holy Spirit is meant to be our sole source of information about the Scriptures, then let her no longer quote from any translation, but hereafter read only the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, trusting in the Spirit—not human translators—to interpret the words for her.

But if she relies on scholarship to translate the words of the Bible into her own language—scholarship which does in fact use extra-Biblical Jewish and Greek literature in order to interpret the meanings and connotations of the words of the Bible—then let her cease from disparaging those of us who rely on scholarship to translate the cultural idioms of the Bible into our own language as well!

Regarding those of the Hebrew Roots movement who challenge the Greek New Testament, I will say first and foremost that such are the minority. Most of the movement bases its arguments not upon what the original Hebrew might have been, but on the Greek manuscripts that we do have (see, for example, Stern’s Jewish New Testament Commentary). Where some (like FFOZ) do occasionally refer back to what Yeshua’s original Hebrew and/or Aramaic words might have been, no significant Christian doctrine is challenged in the process; rather, such excursions are generally taken either a) explain the “hard sayings” of Yeshua (particularly in the book of Matthew), or b) to compare one of Yeshua’s sayings or that of an Apostle to that of a Jewish source (such as the commentaries on John 1:1 by Lightfoot and Holding, which we reference here).

In any case, it is almost a given that Matthew and Hebrews, at the very least, have a Hebrew origin, as attested to by the early Church fathers. Papias (quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. His. 3.39) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3.1.1) both report that Matthew was originally written “among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” Jerome likewise bears witness to this when he writes (On Illustrious Men, ch. 3):

MATTHEW, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it.

Likewise, the book of Hebrews has a witness in Clement (Fragments, 1) that it was translated from Hebrew to Greek (by Luke). If indeed it was originally written to the Jews in the vicinity of Judea to correct a dependence on the Temple service, it could not have been written in Greek originally, for as Josephus notes in his Antiquities (20.11.2),

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations . . .

While it does not follow that every book of the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the fact that these two most likely were—and more importantly, the fact that virtually every word our Lord originally spoke would have been in those two languages—means that going beyond the Greek and attempting to reconstruct the Hebrew is a worthy venture. Nor does it deny the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures, for inspiration and inerrancy has always been understood as applying only to the autographs, not to copies nor translations.

After quoting 2 Pt. 3:16—what significance she finds for the current subject is not given—Vicki writes, “Orthodox scholars agree that the New Testament was originally written in Greek.” How she defines “orthodox”—does this merely mean scholars that agree with her views?—or how she arrived at the unspoken “all” in her statement are not given; she quotes only two sources. A far better treatment of the issue of Matthew’s original language, for example, which acknowledges an ongoing discussion as to the possibility of an Aramaic/Hebrew original of Matthew, is presented by the non-Messianic apologist J.P. Holding here.

Vicki next quotes one Hyram Maccoby as stating that the Gospel accounts reflect an anti-Semetic bias. Here she once again has not done her homework, as the mainline Hebrew Roots and Messianic movements have done a great deal of scholarship to prove that the Gospel accounts and other NT writings, far from being tainted by anti-Semetism, actually reflect an internal debate between Jews and a great concern for the Jewish people as a whole, not the external debate between “Christians” and “Jews” that many Christian commentators consider a given when reading them. For example, Lancaster writes in the introduction of King of the Jews,

Jesus was really Jewish. If you saw Him, you could not possibly mistake it. The man was Jewish. Everything He did and said was patently Jewish. That’s what this book is about. (p. ix)

After describing the shift from being a distinctly Jewish faith to “a new Christianity” which “defined herself against Judaism and Jewishness” (p. xi), Lancaster states,

However, the church’s sacred writings—the Gospels and Epistles left behind by those earliest believers—testify to the absolute Jewishness of the man and the original faith. The evidence remains within the books of the New Testament, like an ancient, hidden code. Most Christians read over it without ever suspecting its existence. (p. xii)

As one reads through the books and articles written by dozens of Messianic authors (including this author’s own webpage), one finds the same conclusion repeated over and over: The problem has never been with the New Testament, but with the presuppositions we have read into it. Maccoby would therefore actually be on the far fringe of the movement, and certainly not a spokesman for it.

Once again, Vicki has displayed a complete lack of discernment in choosing who to hold up as indicative of the direction of the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movements as a whole.

Shalom!

Still Alive!

2007-08-03T02:12:00.000-04:00

Well, I survived the move . . . if only barely. I've still got a lot of unpacking to do, but it's mostly just moving stuff from boxes to shelves now.

Tonight should be interesting; I'll be sleeping in a bed I've kept in storage for about five years now--all of the places I've lived since then have been furnished already, so I haven't had need of it. I hope it's as comfortable as I remember.

Thank you, Father, for keeping us safe on the road today, and for providing a roof over my head.

Shalom!

Random Update

2007-07-30T16:47:00.000-04:00

It's been a busy few days, and lest I drop out of sight for another six weeks (Heaven forbid!), I thought I should post at least something briefly.

I'm currently in the process of getting ready to move, which means lots of planning and packing. The move is being driven by my financial situation not improving as I'd hoped, but it's also beneficial to the family as a whole; if all goes well, I'm taking over a house my parents haven't been able to sell and moving in with my brother. It also puts me closer to my SO.

While I've got more material on the SeekGod front, I'm holding off posting it for a bit, mostly so I can space posts out if things stay crazy for a while.

Be back soon!

Shalom!

Tisha B'Av

2007-07-25T03:50:00.000-04:00

Tisha B'Av, the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, has just passed. It's a solemn occasion, a time to remember the destruction of the two Temples as well as numerous other calamities that have befallen the Jews on this day since. For example (with thanks in part to KHouse for the list):

135 CE - The Bar Koshba revolt is squelched with the fall of Bethar, the last Jewish stronghold
136 CE - Emperor Hadrian establishes a temple of Zeus and the pagan city of Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem
1095 AD - The declaration of the Crusades by Pope Urban II, which resulted in many Jews being attacked by Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land
1242 AD - The burning of the Talmud
1290 AD - The signing of the edict by King Edward I expelling the Jews from England
1492 AD - Ferdinand and Isabella issued a royal decree that all Jews must leave the Spanish territories by August 3rd (9th of Av on the Hebrew calendar)
1914 AD - The start of the First World War
1942 AD - The first killings at the Treblinka extermination camp in Poland
1994 AD - And the AMIA bombing by Arab terrorists in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which killed 86 and wounded more than 120

It is also tradition that it was on the 9th of Av that ten of the twelve spies that Israel sent into Canaan came back with a bad report, causing Israel to lose faith and wander the wilderness for 40 years (cf. Num. 13). I also think it likely that Moses removed the Tent of Meeting from the camp on Tisha b'Av, as we explain in our article, The Feasts and the Exodus.

We praise ADONAI that Tisha B'Av has passed this year without trouble, and pray His continued protection over Israel, both the land and in Diaspora, throughout the year.

Shalom!

A Response to Pyromaniacs

2007-07-24T15:22:00.000-04:00

Per reader Bryan Z’s request, we’re taking a break from responding to SeekGod’s Vicki in order to respond to another article written on the Pyromaniacs blog. The article in question is written by Steven A. Kreloff rather than the blog’s owner, Phil Johnson. Pardon the length; I wanted to answer a whole post in a single post, and these are not simple issues to be addressed.

While the article is very well written, and is instructive for making a very (if I may say so) typically Christian argument against Messianic Judaism. Many of its arguments have been previously refuted on HebrewRoot, and in those cases, I will of course refer readers to the appropriate articles rather than re-invent the wheel. I also suggest that all readers refer to our general article Why the New Covenant Doesn’t Do Away With the Torah for a general overview of arguments in favor of a Torah-observant Body of Messiah.

Kreloff’s opening paragraphs explain exactly what he sees wrong in Messianic Judaism:

A number of years ago, when my son was young, we attended a baseball game. Not only was my son a baseball fan, but he was also an avid collector of baseball cards. When we arrived at the ballpark, though, I noticed that he seemed more interested in looking at the pictures of the players on his cards than in watching the ball players on the field. In my astonishment I asked him, "Why are you looking at the pictures, when the real living players are standing right in front of you?"

What my son did with baseball cards and players, many Jewish Christians today do with their faith. Embracing a concept known as Messianic Judaism, these Jewish believers emphasize Old Testament laws and practices (such as dietary laws, feasts, and Sabbath days) as the way to please God. Yet Paul referred to these kinds of observances as "shadows" pointing to the reality of Jesus Christ (Col. 2:16, 17).

Our fuller response to the argument from Colossians can be found here. To sum it up, I will make two illustrations here. The first is to ask whether Mr. Kreloff keeps a picture of his wife or significant other in his wallet? If so, why? Doesn’t he have the real wife to look upon? And yet he, and most other Americans, keeps pictures of his loved ones as reminders of them and a way of keeping them close as he goes through his day.

In the same way, the Feasts of ADONAI serve as reminders of the Messiah. Consider the first Feast commanded, Passover. It celebrated Israel’s redemption from Egypt. Would we ask why Israel continued to keep Passover after they had already been redeemed? Or do we understand that it served like a picture in the wallet, reminding Israel every year of her great Loved One and how He saved them from bondage? In the same way, Messianics keep Passover as a yearly reminder of our Beloved Lamb, who gave His life to redeem us from bondage to the world—and really, don’t most Christians keep Easter for the same reason?

The second illustration is derived from water immersion, or baptism. As Col. 2:11-12 explains, baptism is symbolic of our dying to our old lives with Yeshua and being raised with Him into a whole new life to be lived in the Spirit. Now, knowing the reason for this “shadow,” how many Christians think that we should cease to keep baptism simply because we have the Messiah, the reality to which the baptism points?

Kreloff continues by stating that Yeshua is superior to the types of the Tanakh that point to Him. We agree completely; that doesn’t in and of itself change whether we should continue to keep God’s commandments. The argument that he alludes to, but doesn’t yet make, from Hebrews is answered here and in my debate with Myles Davis: No part of the Torah was done away with, and only the High Priesthood and sacrifices were transferred to Yeshua.

Kreloff’s next argument is both very typical of mainline Christianity and utterly without Biblical support: “Instead of encouraging these Hebrews to remain within their comfortable religious practices, the inspired penman pleads with them to abandon these customs in favor of loyalty to Jesus Christ.”

Such a thought never entered into the Apostles’ minds, let alone their pens! In Acts 15, the subject of whether Jews should continue to keep the Torah is never even raised; it is considered a given that they would and the question is wholly on how to handle the Gentile converts flooding the synagogues every Sabbath to hear of Yeshua. In Acts 21:20ff, we are told that the tens of thousands of Messianic Jews “are all zealous for the Law,” and that Rabbi Sha’ul, aka the Apostle Paul, took a Nazrite vow with four others and went to the Temple to make sacrifices (v. 26) in order to refute the idea that he was telling Jewish believers “to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs” (v. 21)! We also refute the argument that the Apostles had ceased to live as Jews that is often made from Galatians here.

Note that without this foundational assumption that the Apostles saw themselves as the forerunners of a new religion rather than as Jews who saw their Judaism made complete (whole) in the Messiah, Kreloff’s entire article falls apart. Note also that Messianic Judaism has long had substantial rebuttal arguments to this assumption, arguments that Mr. Kreloff does not even mention, let alone address. With all respect to Mr. Kreloff, this speaks of a knee-jerk response, not of someone who has carefully studied Messianic Judaism so as to be able to write a viable argument against it—and reflexive opposition has never been an ally to the truth.

A Theological Danger?

Kreloff’s next section begins,

The greatest menace posed by Messianic Judaism is that, by encouraging its followers to diligently observe Old Testament laws, it obscures the foundational truth of Christianity, which is justification by faith in Christ. Though many within this movement are born again and would affirm that their salvation is based upon Christ's substitutionary atonement, yet their emphasis upon Old Testament ceremonial laws gives the distinct impression that the observing of these laws are necessary for salvation.

A distinct impression to whom? And on what basis? Does simply obeying a command of God automatically imply that one is doing so with the belief that one is working towards his/her salvation?

I assume that Mr. Kreloff opposes adultery and homosexuality, and his faithful to his own wife. Would he accept the argument that by doing so, he “gives the distinct impression that the observing of these laws are necessary for salvation”? He might, at that, but would such a stance in any way diminish Grace? What about the command to be baptized into the Name of the Lord Yeshua? Is doing it in just the right way—whatever way Mr. Kreloff thinks is correct—necessary for salvation?

Obviously, any command can become the basis for a legalistic attitude. Many Christians have killed each other in arguments over baptism in darker times, and even today many Christians condemn those who drink, smoke, listen to the wrong music, etc.—none of which are even part of the Biblical commands! Do these errors mean that mainline Christianity should be considered a “menace”?

Let’s be clear about this: Repentance (turning away from one’s sin) is necessary for salvation:

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. (1Jn. 1:5-10)

Does this mean that someone who sins unintentionally and doesn’t realize it is condemned? Not at all—the sacrifice clearly covers sins of ignorance (Lev. 4:2ff, Heb. 9:7). This is one reason why the Apostles did not see keeping the Torah as a prerequisite for salvation, and instead only laid down four basic laws that would separate the Gentile converts from paganism (see again our article on Acts 15). However, it does mean that just as the Israelites who sinned out of ignorance and then came to realize it were responsible for repenting from that sin and making the appropriate sacrifice, those of us in Messiah who find out that we have not been keeping one of His commands because we didn’t know about it or didn’t know that it applied to us are likewise responsible for thereafter keeping the command and relying on Yeshua’s sacrifice to cover us.

So then, do I believe that we who are in Messiah should continue to keep His Feasts and other “Jewish” commandments? Absolutely. Do I see it as a matter of salvation? Absolutely not. Since we are indeed saved by faith, we can afford to honestly disagree about the interpretation of certain passages of Scripture.

I trust that clarifies the erroneous “impression” Mr. Kreloff has. On to his next objection:

Indeed, there are some within the messianic movement who teach that Jewish believers are obligated to observe all the Old Testament laws. They would in fact associate their salvation with keeping these laws.

For the former, yes, on the basis (Acts 21) already given. For the latter, who is Kreloff claiming takes this position?

Kreloff next argues from Galatians as a whole We’ve previously touched on this in part, but have not yet finished a full article on Galatians as a whole. While our previously cited articles address Kreloff’s specific points, let us take a moment to address the specific points he makes here:

He called their rejection of grace for law "a different gospel" (1:6) and a distortion of the gospel of Christ (1:7).

This is true. However, the issue was neither one of Jewish believers remaining Jewish nor even of Gentile believers keeping the commands of the Torah. Rather, the issue, per Acts 15:1 & 6, was that circumcision (being Jewish) and keeping the Torah were being distorted into prerequisites for salvation and fellowship. As I pointed out in my debate with Myles Davis,

In fact, it was to combat this then-prevailing rabbinic error that the Apostles forbade Gentile believers to circumcise, as explained before. The command to be made righteous by trusting in God alone (Gen. 15:6) preceded (both chronologically and in importance) the command to be circumcised (Gen. 17). So long as the misperception ruled that one had to be circumcised to be saved, and to be circumcised meant to become a Jew, the two were in conflict.

In order to preserve both the true way of salvation as commanded by the Torah—by faith—and to preserve God’s promise to call Gentiles—not just proselytized Jews—by His Name, the Apostles had to put the command of faith ahead of the command of circumcision. They did not annul the Torah by so doing: They actually preserved and upheld it according to its true meaning!

Note that the emphasis against circumcision was meant to be a general rule, not an absolute prohibition; otherwise, Paul damned both Timothy and himself by circumcising the young Greek (Acts 16:3; note that this was many centuries before the rabbis ceased to trace one’s ancestry through the father).

So long as justification by faith, just as our father Abraham was, is kept foremost in mind as the reason for doing good works (cf. Eph. 2:8-10), there is no contradiction between faith and works. Let me repeat again: I do not seek to keep the Torah in order to be saved; I seek to keep it because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way.

A Ecclesiological Danger?

Kreloff’s next objection is, to put it plainly, nonsensical:

One of the great truths of the New Testament is that the Body of Christ is made up of both Jews and Gentiles. It is an unbiblical concept to have a local church that is distinctively Jewish or Gentile (by necessity the early church in Jerusalem consisted of all Jews because the Gospel had not been presented to the Gentile world). Thus, the nature of messianic synagogues—with their unique Jewish distinctions—violates the very spirit of fellowship among believers of all backgrounds and cultures.

If it is unbiblical to have a local church that is distinctively Gentile, then by definition virtually every church in the world is unbiblical! Would Kreloff argue that having a church with a distinctly American culture—as his doubtless is, though he may be so immersed in our culture as to not notice it—is a violation of Scripture? What about a church with a distinctly Chinese flavor? Hispanic? African? What exactly is wrong with having a church with a particular cultural tradition?

And if one may have a Biblical church with a distinctive American, Chinese, Hispanic, or African cultural tradition, exactly on what basis can one object to an assembly with a distinct Jewish cultural tradition?

Of course, this "any culture but Jewish" attitude in the Ekklesia goes back a long way, with Jews who wanted to worship a Jewish Messiah being forced to take oaths to give up everything Jewish about their heritage, as Dan Juster documents in an article on our home site. Even today, Jews who come to the Messiah in a Sunday church are nearly always pressured to become “uncircumcised” in direct violation of 1Co. 7:18 and Acts 21. “You know Jesus now? Congratulations! Here, have a ham sandwich. What? Don’t you know that only the weak in faith keep kosher?” etc.

That being the case, it’s hardly surprising that Messianics would rather a new Jewish believer come to one of our synagogues. It’s not a matter of forcible separation on our part—it’s a matter of not wanting to help with the assimilation of the Jewish people into a Gentile culture. It may be objected that Christians aren’t assimilating Jews, but “completing” them. Not true. According to Paul in Romans 2:25, a Jew who ceases to keep the Torah becomes a Gentile for all practical purposes: “For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”

Fortunately, we are seeing a shift in the above situation: Many evangelical churches today are discovering a new respect for the Jewish culture which gave them the Bible, and are encouraging the Jews in their midst to keep to that culture. However, that shift is coming about precisely because there is such a thing as Messianic Judaism and the Hebrew Roots movement.

Kreloff writes,

By encouraging messianic synagogues, Messianic Judaism promotes division in the Body of Christ that is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament.

Tell me, does having Baptists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, etc. promote division in the Body of Messiah, or should we all go back to being Roman Catholic in the name of unity? If one supports the right of different denominations to develop with their own (Biblically-defined, one would hope) cultures, liturgy, songs, order of service, etc., on what basis can one object to Messianic Judaism as one among many?

Are we seeing the pattern here? Isn’t Mr. Kreloff saying again (however unintentionally, as I’m sure it is), “Different church cultures are fine—just as long as they aren’t Jewish!” How did we, who are the inheritors of a Jewish Messiah whose Name and teachings were passed on by wholly Jewish Apostles ever come to such a theological (as opposed to personal) anti-Semitism?

Simple: By a misuse of Galatians compounded by centuries of human tradition. Galatians does not override Acts 21, or the book of Romans, or 1Co. 7, or any of the other innumerable places where Paul affirmed that there was still value to being Jewish and keeping the Torah—let alone our true Master’s own command that even the least of the Torah should be kept (Mat. 5:17-19)!

Tell me, Mr. Kreloff, since you have cited Gal. 3:28 as stating that Jewish believers should not continue to live as Jews, does this passage also annul Paul’s own teaching on separate responsibilities for men and women, per 1Co. 11:3-10, for example? Does this passage mean that homosexuality is now permitted, since there is no difference between male and female? Of course not! The point of the passage is that all have equal access to the Messiah and God’s grace regardless of their birth, not that all distinctions have been completely destroyed!

Paul himself states, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2). Is Paul schizophrenic on the issue? Or have we perhaps misunderstood his writings, as happened even in his own day (cf. 1Pt. 3:16)? Perhaps it is time to stop building our theology wholly upon Paul (and that out-of-context), and build it instead on the whole of Scripture.

If Mr. Kreloff is really concerned about Jews going to Messianic synagogues and “robbing” the Sunday churches of their richness, perhaps he should abandon an anti-Jewish, anti-Torah theology which drives them there. He should also recognize that just as he goes to an American church as opposed to a Korean church because of his cultural preference, the Messianic Jew has the same freedom in the Messiah.

An Evangelistic Danger?

Kreloff starts his next section,

Adherents to Messianic Judaism believe that those identified with messianic synagogues make better witnesses to Jewish people than Gentiles from a Bible believing local church. However, the Apostle Paul told the Romans that his goal in ministering to so many Gentiles (he was the Apostle to the Gentiles) was to provoke Jewish people to jealousy (Romans 11:14). In other words, he felt that the best way to arouse Jewish interest in the gospel was through Gentile Christians. When Jewish people observe Gentile believers having a relationship with the Jewish Messiah and loving their Jewish Bibles, they often are provoked to a jealousy that eventually leads them to Christ.

Likewise, when Jewish people observe Jew and Gentile worshipping together in a Messianic synagogue, following the Messiah by keeping the Torah, their jealousy is aroused that much more.

Let me share a true story: I know a family in which the mother’s mother is Jewish. For years, she has resented her son-in-law because she saw him as tearing her daughter away from her Jewish heritage. From a very young age, she had adopted the philosophy, “I was born a Jew, and I’ll die a Jew,” which made her completely resistant to Gentile Christianity.

Since her family started attending our synagogue and her daughter has returned to her Jewish roots, her attitude towards her son-in-law and Yeshua have softened considerably. Her jealousy for her heritage has indeed been provoked, but it wasn’t by Gentile Christianity—it was by her daughter and granddaughter’s Messianic Judaism.

What Kreloff fails to appreciate is that when Paul penned those words, he was living in a time when Gentile believers were coming into the Jewish synagogues (Acts 13-14) and learning the Torah (Acts 15:21) to hear of the Messiah. They were a sub-culture within Judaism, a sect (Acts 24:5 & 14, 28:22), not a separate religion. In such a position, they could indeed provoke the Jews to jealousy by showing an enormous love to each other, displaying their Spiritual gifts, and speaking of a Messiah who encapsulated the whole Torah—but as a separate religion which rejected even her own Jewish members (as long as they remained distinctively Jewish) and who rejected the Torah, we don’t provoke this jealousy—the vigilant guardianship of something we own or have a special relationship with. Does a man feel jealousy over his wife when he sees his friend with a different woman?

While it’s true that most Jews who have come to faith in Messiah have done so by my Sunday-brethren’s efforts. That’s hardly surprising just as a matter of numbers and time—Messianic Judaism has only really begun to spread in the last 20 years, and there are perhaps a million in us in the world as opposed to billions of professing Christians.

I don’t know many Messianics who would lose that advantage of numbers and time in reaching our Jewish brothers and sisters with the Gospel. Our concern is wholly with which way our Gentile brethren will influence new Jewish believers after they come to faith in a Jewish Messiah: Will they encourage them to maintain their Jewish culture, or tell them to stop keeping the Torah and become as Gentiles? If the latter, then they are in violation of Paul’s own writings as well as the Tanakh and Yeshua’s teachings.

Jewish believers do indeed offer so much to the Body of Messiah. Unfortunately, for most of the last 2000 years, we have rejected their gifts in the name of conformity and a terrible misreading of Paul’s writings. Messianic Judaism represents a reversal of this tragedy, a movement where Jews and Gentiles together can learn the full Jewishness of the Messiah and the Bible, and in turn use what we have learned by living to edify our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Shalom!

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 5

2007-07-23T00:31:00.000-04:00

The purpose of this article is to defend Messianic Judaism against what I believe to be an unfair and unscriptural attack. While this of necessity requires a certain amount of “counter-attack,” I will try to keep the focus on the arguments rather than the person, though some comments about Vicki’s general tendencies in her writings are necessary.

Answering Vicki’s Specific Objections

Having established that many of Vicki’s arguments are misdirected due to her failure to discern the fringe from the core, let us deal with some of her arguments that actually do touch on the core of the Hebrew Roots and Messianic movements:

She quotes Larry Rowland of Messengers of Truth as saying, “In order to correctly understand the Newer Testament, it is beneficial to have a working knowledge of the world from which it was birthed.” She responds,

We have always understood that the Bible was a revelation of God himself. It encompasses His unending love, mercy, justice, patience and most of all, His plan for humanity and our salvation through Jesus Christ.

That does nothing to answer or disprove Rowland’s statement. Yes, the Bible was written for all mankind, but it was written through the lens of a particular culture, and that culture is Jewish! All Christian scholars acknowledge that our culture today is nothing like that of the Biblical world—take for example apologist J.P. Holding’s comparison of Biblical culture to Japanese culture in its honor-shame paradigm. While the major truths of the Bible, such as salvation by faith, are apparent in any decent translation, there are many passages that can only be fully understood by learning about the original culture and situation of the authors. Indeed, the very fact that we have to translate the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English proves Rowland’s point!

Vicki asks,

Do we indeed have to become Jewish in thought and custom in order to fully understand the Word of God and be pleasing before Him?

Okay, without accepting the “prophecy” as such (I don’t know Cozzen well enough to judge his “credentials” as a prophet, nor do I consider the question important at the moment), Cozzen’s essential point that we have accepted the Bible in general and the NT in particular as filtered through Western, Hellenistic culture rather than through its original Hebrew culture is essentially correct. Just as a Japanese person must become somewhat American in thought in order to fully understand an American book, we too must become Jewish in thought in order to fully understand a book written by Jews, the Bible. Why should that seem strange to anyone? (We do not, however, have to become Jewish in custom in order to please God, per Acts 15 and Gal. 2.)

Are we to accept that we have been lacking and even deliberately misled as some will say, by the New Testament and many orthodox teachings?

Few Messianics claim that the New Testament has misled us! What we are saying, just as Martin Luther said to the Church of his day, is that the NT has been misunderstood and some of its teachings ignored or distorted by preconceptions of what constitutes “orthodox” teachings.

What of the needed reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles they say will take place if we embrace our Hebrew Roots?

What of it? I’m not seeing a contradiction here.

Is there any truth to the charges of anti-Semitism towards Jews on the part of Christians in general, and from the New Testament?

From the former, there is no doubt. From the latter, no—but our misreading of the NT has certainly been used to justify anti-Semitism both great (blood-libel, pogroms) and small (forcing Jewish converts to Christianity to stop keeping the Torah).

She next objects to this “teaching of Jew and Gentile reconciliation” on the basis of Gal. 3:26-29. How exactly this passage is supposed to counter the Messianic movement is not stated; she simply assumes as a given that “There is neither Jew nor Greek,” negates the Bible’s distinctly Jewish—rather than Greek—origins. One wonders if she also sees this passage, which goes on to say, “there is neither male nor female,” negates the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality, for example, or Paul’s own teaching about the distinctions between men and women (e.g., 1 Co. 11:4ff).

After a brief criticism of the Sacred Namers (which we would agree with in general, though Vicki simply doesn’t provide much in the way of an actual argument to be considered), she writes,

Besides removing or changing the Name of Jesus Christ, many would eliminate the term Christianity. Uri Marcus, of Nehemiah Trustees Covenant Fund, in an email regarding "A Vote For "Jesus"?, insists that converted Jews must retain their Jewish identity and refuse the Christian name so as not to offend their fellow Jews

Vicki fails to recognize that there is a good reason for this: For the better part of sixteen centuries, Christianity has been the persecutor of the Jewish people. Even today, every time a Jewish person comes to faith in the Jewish Messiah, we tell them to become like Gentiles rather than remaining in their own Jewish culture. Messianic Jews wish to be considered part of the larger Jewish community, just as the Apostles were, not part of a Gentile religion—and frankly, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Shalom!

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 4

2007-07-21T01:11:00.000-04:00

The purpose of this article is to defend Messianic Judaism against what I believe to be an unfair and unscriptural attack. While this of necessity requires a certain amount of “counter-attack,” I will try to keep the focus on the arguments rather than the person, though some comments about Vicki’s general tendencies in her writings are necessary.

Promoters of Hebrew Roots

It’s significant that in this section, Vicki has isolated a handful of individuals of, frankly, little contribution to the Messianic movement as a whole. She does not even bring up David H. Stern, whose Messianic Jewish Manifesto and Complete Jewish Bible and Commentary are standard reading in many or most Messianic congregations; in fact, while modern Messianic Judaism has no singular leader or founder (unlike, for example, the Lutherans, Presbyterians, or Methodists), David Stern would come closer to qualifying than almost anyone else.

Nor does she mention D. Thomas Lancaster or Tim Hegg of First Fruits of Zion, Michael L. Brown (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus), Kevin Howard and Marvin Rosenthal (The Feasts of the Lord), Mark Kinzer (Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism), or any other well-known, published authors in the Messianic movement. Admittedly, some of these (like FFOZ) may have come to the forefront after she wrote her initial article, but Stern, for example preceded her website by fifteen and seven years, respectively.

(A correction: I originally referred to Mark Nanos here as being Messianic; he is not, but rather is a Reform Jew who believes that the misrepresentation of Paul's view has been extremely harmful to the Jewish people--and he's right. My apologies to him for the accidental misrepresentation on my part.)

Vicki shows little understanding of the diversity within the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movement—to start, she continually groups them together when they should be regarded as interrelated, but separate groups. For another, she takes several distinct congregations, takes diverse statements from their leaders, and jumbles them together into a caricature of what “mainline” Messianic Judaism (if there is such a thing) truly believes.

For example, she has no cognizance of the fact that the role that the Talmud, if any, should play in Messianic Judaism is an ongoing and healthy debate. Avi ben Mordecai, as a Jew of Orthodox background living in Israel, believes that the Talmud should be kept. There is a whole community of Messianic Jews living in Israel (warning: YouTube link) who disagree with him—and far more living outside of the Land. In fact, he himself says at the beginning of the quote she has selected, “I am not a proponent of the ‘Jewish Roots’ or ‘Hebraic Roots’ movement as you or they define the terms”! How then are his opinions on the matter of halakhah relevant to a discussion of a group that he himself admits not belonging to? That’d be like me quoting a Catholic about Mary to discredit an Evangelical denomination!

Vicki quotes several sources as “leaders” of the Messianic movement; where she got the idea that these were leaders accepted by the movement as a whole is not stated. She has failed to notice that each of these three has distinct points-of-view which are at least partially incompatible with the others: Avi ben Mordecai would be unlikely to accept Dean Cozzens as a prophet, for example. Nor would Cozzens or Rowland accept ben Mordecai’s belief that we should keep the whole Oral Torah—not to mention ben Mordecai’s denial of being a part of the Hebrew Roots or Messianic movements at all!

What we are seeing here is that Vicki does not know how to properly discern between differing sub-groups of a movement. By differing between such groups and then discerning the common denominators between them, one can develop a core set of beliefs that characterize a movement as a whole, and then present a criticism of those. In the case of the Messianic/Hebrew Roots movement, one could legitimately criticize the following beliefs, which I defend on HebrewRoot:

A need to understand the Jewish origins of the Scriptures and to read them in that light rather than in a Greek/Western light
The validity in keeping the Torah for the believer in Messiah today
Keeping the Feasts of the Lord
A belief that we are grafted into Israel’s branch without replacing the natural branches
A predominantly premillennial eschatology

If one were doing a critique of the Messianic portion of the movement, one could add the following:

Keeping of much (not all) Jewish tradition as a legitimate expression of our faith in Messiah
Referencing the Talmud and other Judaica for history and commentary (though in fact many Christian commentators do this, such as Edersheim, Keil & Delitzsch, and Lightfoot)

However, the following beliefs are held only by some groups within the Hebrew Roots/Messianic movement (many would say the fringe elements):

A Pentecostal belief in the Spiritual gifts – in this case, my own congregation does believe in the Spiritual gifts as continuing today, but we do not derive any theology from extra-Biblical prophecies, nor do we claim to speak for all Messianics in this matter
A belief in the divine origin of the Oral Torah
Kabbalistic teaching – I don’t actually know any Messianic congregation which promotes studying Kabbalah, though I suppose there are probably a few somewhere
The Sacred Name belief – on why “Jehovah” is not the correct transliteration, see here and here.

By failing to understand the different “flavors” of Messianism, or to acknowledge that the movement as a whole does not have a single leader or group of leaders, Vicki has mischaracterized mainline Messianic belief. By suggesting that we dispute the inspiration of the NT, she has again mischaracterized mainline Messianic belief. While she does raise some valid questions (though not questions without answers, as my own page and this blog demonstrate), she has not done enough research to know what the Messianic response to her arguments are in order to counter them.

In short, Vicki has either not done her homework or has not done so with a researcher’s discernment, and in the process has (inadvertently, we hope) slandered a large (over a million and counting) group of people.

Shalom!

HebrewRoot Update

2007-07-19T07:08:00.000-04:00

I've just posted a new article on HebrewRoot called The Way of Paradise: Rabbinic Hermeneutics. It's a look at the four levels of interpretation that one can find in virtually any passage of Scripture, including examples of those levels being used by the Apostles in the Renewed Covenant Scriptures. I actually wrote it in response to some of the stuff I've been responding to on SeekGod, but it incorporates some thoughts that I've had and arguments I've made on FR as early as two years ago. Hopefully, it stands as a worthy contribution to an area where many others have written in more (and probably better) detail.

Shalom!

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 3

2007-07-18T02:50:00.000-04:00

Anti-Semitism?

“Those who have challenged the Hebrew Roots teachings in the past have been dealt with swiftly and with the utmost hostility,” Vicki writes. “Dealt with?” With what? Hit-squads? No, as it turns out, by angry emails which use strong language. While I don’t condone the email presented, I’m not sure how this constitutes being “dealt with swiftly” or “with the utmost hostility”—is Vicki likewise dealing with Messianics “swiftly and with the utmost hostility” by publishing her website?

It’s interesting that the email she has chosen to use as an example of this hostility is obviously a knee-jerk reaction, rather than one written by a calmer, more eloquent author. She claims it to be from a “well-known leader,” but doesn’t tell us who. Frankly, anyone who is in ministry gets the occasional kook email or letter; our synagogue gets them all the time, many from “leaders” in the Christian world. Should I use those emails to show just how the Christian world is out to get us, and hint at a conspiracy to silence our point of view? Neither should Vicki use her kook mail to attack Messianism.

She continues,

Those who question this movement have often been accused of anti-semitism. Does the presentation of various Jewish doctrines obtained from Jewish sources constitute anti-Semitism? It seems unreasonable to conclude that the facts, presented objectively, are inherently anti-Semitic.

That depends: Are these Jewish doctrines presented in their full historical and linguistic context? Has Vicki studied the Judaica enough to know how to evaluate whether a source is considered “authoritative” or whether it is simply the recorded position of a single rabbi? Frankly, I could go through the writings of such well-respected fathers of Christianity as John Chrysostom and Martin Luther and pull quotes a-plenty to demonstrate that Christianity is a Jew-hating religion—but Vicki would be quick to leap on me for my selective quotation, and rightfully so.

Let me be the first to point out that there are passages in the Talmud and other traditional sources that are very blasphemous to our Lord Yeshua. However, I would also point out that a) just because something is in the Talmud does not make it authoritative for Judaism as a whole (just as not all things said by the early Church fathers are authoritative for Christianity as a whole), and b) that those statements were given and recorded at a time when the Church had joined with the State of Rome in persecuting the Jewish people.

Which is more blasphemous: To speak slander of an anti-Torah, anti-Jew “Jesus” that the Christians have presented you, or persecuting a person in Jesus’ name so as to provoke them to speak slander of Him? I’d say the latter.

Vicki writes, “Moreover, this writer has no bias against the Jews, but looks forward to the salvation of any through Jesus Christ.” The question is, once they are saved, would she encourage them to remain circumcised, Jewish, per Acts 21:20ff and 1 Co. 7:19, or would she expect them to assimilate into Gentile Christian culture? If she objects to the Messianic movement as a whole, the answer is necessarily the latter; and if the latter, Vicki is either saying that she wants there to be no more Jews, only Gentilized Christians, or that she wants some or most Jews to never accept their Messiah.

I’m sure Vicki would be appalled at those two conclusions, but they are the only ones which logically follow from her arguments.

Shalom!

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 2

2007-07-17T16:15:00.000-04:00

To Embrace Hebrew Roots: Part I

Introduction

I have to give Vicki credit for both hitting the ground running and not pulling her punches even in her opening. She begins:

Research into the Hebrew Roots & Messianic movements constitutes research into Judaism as well as the occult. . . . We do not wish to edit or criticize Judaism, but recognize it as distinct from our Christian beliefs, just as many in Judaism also see a distinction and separateness from our beliefs, and we jointly have mutual respect for our differences and each other.

As we will see, by her tacit accusation of “occultism” in Messianic Judaism, she means our general utilization of the Talmud as a source of history and commentary. To say this on the one hand, but to claim respect for Judaism on the other, lacks consistency to say the least.

She begins with a fairly common format of asking the questions she intends to answer and expressing her concern that the Hebrew Roots movement is not all that it claims. So far, so good, and no real surprises. I would argue with her assertion that Christians “already study [the Old Testament] in light of the New Testament”—while this may be true in theory, in practice 90% percent of all sermons concentrate on the writings of Paul, and rarely touch on any of the Tanakh. The fact is that the Hebrew Roots movement wouldn’t even exist as a noticeable entity within the Body of Messiah if there weren’t so many believers hungry to better know how the Tanakh and New Covenant fit together.

Her introduction concludes:

We know that many of the Hebrew Roots ministries are connected with each other and with various other types of ministries. This obligates us to investigate them even more thoroughly. By examining the HR teachings, those of the Jewish faith and it's [sic] mystical exponent, Kabbalism--which is indeed the concerning root of the Hebrew Roots movement--we will then see if what is taught upholds the Word of God.

The first sentence is so obvious as to be meaningless: Of course many Hebrew Roots and Messianic ministries are connected with each other! We keep in contact the same way and for the same reasons that the various Evangelical churches and denominations do. I fail to see why this merits special investigation, unless Vicki’s intent is to suggest some sort of sinister cabal underlying the whole thing.

However, it’s the charge of Kabbalism against the movement as a whole which is particularly interesting and telling. The fact is that most Messianics—including those who have been in the movement for many years—have little more idea of what Kabbalism is than a dictionary definition. I’ve done somewhat more research into what Kabbalism teaches, and I can say that there is very little if any Kabbalistic influence in the Messianic movement. We’ll address her specific arguments for this influence as we continue.

Anti-Semitism?

“Those who have challenged the Hebrew Roots teachings in the past have been dealt with swiftly and with the utmost hostility,” Vicki writes. “Dealt with?” With what? Hit-squads? No, as it turns out, by angry emails that use strong language. I’m not sure how this constitutes being “dealt with swiftly” or “with the utmost hostility”—is Vicki likewise dealing with Messianics “swiftly and with the utmost hostility” by publishing her website?

She continues,

Those who question this movement have often been accused of anti-semitism. Does the presentation of various Jewish doctrines obtained from Jewish sources constitute anti-Semitism? It seems unreasonable to conclude that the facts, presented objectively, are inherently anti-Semitic.

I’m sure Vicki would be appalled at those two conclusions, but they are the only ones which logically follow from her arguments.

Shalom!

An Answer to SeekGod.ca

2007-07-16T17:21:00.000-04:00

Let’s face it: We in the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movement have a lot of adversaries. More than any other reason, I think this is because of an old and misplaced fear in the Church of “Judaizing.” Now just what is Judaizing? Per Acts 15:1 and Gal. 3:3, it is believing that being circumcised—which is to say, becoming fully Jewish by the rabbinic ceremony of circumcision—is a requirement for salvation or for “perfecting” one’s walk. It is not Judaizing for a Jewish believer in the Messiah to continue to be Jewish and keep Torah, or else none of the Apostles were saved (Acts 21:20ff); nor for a Gentile to learn Torah in the synagogues, for then Jacob (James) was in error in Acts 15:21; nor even for a Gentile to become circumcised for the right motives after understanding his salvation by faith, or else Paul damned both Timothy and himself (Acts 16:3).

Now, under that definition, are some Messianic synagogues Judaizing? Possibly, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. We do encourage our Sunday brethren to rediscover the joys of keeping the Torah—particularly the Feasts, which all point to Messiah—but this is simply a matter of disagreeing that only the New Testament should be followed. The vast majority of us out here recognize that we are all saved by faith, so we can afford to honestly agree to disagree and all of us who have put our faith in the Messiah, whether we worship on Shabbat or Sunday, are brothers and sisters together and will be together in the World to Come.
Nevertheless, the accusation refuses to die. So it is with Vicki of SeekGod.ca, who has written quite an extensive series of articles attacking Messianism. Such challenges both deserve and require a response.

Vicki has wisely decided to maintain a certain degree of anonymity on the internet by withholding her last name and other personal information. We do not begrudge her her privacy one bit; however, she does not even disclose a denomination, and in fact claims in her introduction page, “This website is not supported by or aligned with any denomination. This is our family ministry.” She speaks of going to an evangelical church, but does not disclose which branch of evangelicalism. Her statements of belief are extremely general, not allowing for any practical cross-examination. For example, she says, “That the Bible is clear in saying that if we love our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, we will obey all His commandments, not just some of them and that our lives will show a change, as ‘all things become new.’” I would agree (though pointing out that Yeshua told us to keep the whole Torah in Mat. 5:17-19); the problem is that she does not disclose the practical applications of what that means to her. In the interest of fairness, shouldn’t one who subjects the beliefs and practices to others to a microscope be willing to allow them to do the same of hers?

In fact, her whole page seems to be nothing but a series of attacks on other Christian groups, offering very little in the way of positive contributions to the faith. While I am all for challenging and testing beliefs that one does not hold to, it seems a bit unbalanced to spend 99% of one’s time attacking others for their “wrong” beliefs without also writing many positive arguments for one’s own. This is why, for example, HebrewRoot has focused on providing positive arguments for Messianic Judaism and Torah-observance and rebuttal arguments against the more common Scriptures cited against us, but does not attack our Sunday brethren directly or question their integrity or salvation for believing differently on certain relatively minor matters. Nor do we here attack Vicki’s integrity or salvation, though I do question the wisdom and humility of attacking a man who has done far more to spread Christianity than almost anyone else this century for alleged “occultism” in his fictional works.

The purpose of this post and those to follow is to defend Messianic Judaism against what I believe to be an unfair and unscriptural attack. While this of necessity requires a certain amount of “counter-attack,” I will try to keep the focus on the arguments rather than the person, though some comments about Vicki’s general tendencies in her writings are necessary. I do not intend to counter her attacks against specific individuals; those who have been the targets of her darts are the ones best equipped to answer her or to choose to ignore her, whichever seems best to them.

Shalom!

Recent Articles

2007-07-14T02:53:00.000-04:00

You know, with all the neglecting of this blog, I haven't even made a point of posting links to the articles I've written over at HebrewRoot, so here's some recent material:

The Feasts and the Exodus, and overview of the Appointed Times of the Lord, how they related to the Exodus, and how they in turn relate to the two Comings of the Messiah.
Yeshua: The Living Torah, in which I look at the true significance of John 1:1 and demonstrate that not only is Yeshua not opposed to the Torah, but that He is the Torah--that is, the substance of which the written Torah is the shadow--drawing on both rabbinic and Christian thought. This one is probably foundational to understanding Messianic Judaism.

Mark 7:19 and Acts 10:10-16: Jesus Ended the Kosher Laws, in which I address the long-held misconception about these two passages and their true significance. I also address why a Gentile believer does not even have to appeal to the B'rit Chadasha for proof that keeping kosher is not mandatory for them, as well as why some of us choose to keep it anyway.

I also have a major piece coming up, called "Who Has the Authority?" In it, I look at the question of how authority devolves in Scripture, and why, even if Sha'ul (Paul) or another Apostle did claim that we should no longer keep Torah (and I've been doing a pretty good job of demonstrating that they didn't, but just for the sake of argument), they would not have the authority to do so, and would have to be rejected as apostles. It can be summed up in one sentence--"If Jesus and Paul ever did disagree on something, who would you follow?"--but goes into far more detail, including details on how we should understand the authority of non-canonical sources like the rabbis or the early Church fathers.

Before that's finished, I plan to have an answer to the argument from Galatians that keeping Torah makes Messiah of no avail to us. I've actually answered this in my debate with Myles Davis, but I look forward to giving more detail than the format of the debate allows. Speaking of whom, Myles has been held up by a firework injury (third-degree burn) to his leg; he and I speak on the phone regularly and he's doing well, though a bit in pain. He'll have his next response up soon; this will be our last argument round, after which we'll make our closing arguments.

I think that's all for now.

Shalom!

Is Oral Torah Necessary to Keep the Written?

2007-07-13T01:30:00.000-04:00

It's a question that is often answered in knee-jerk fashion. For many observant Jews, the answer is so obviously yes that it seems stupid to even ask it. On the other hand, Christians and many Messianics are just as quick to say "no." (Interestingly, the answer for many Catholics is "yes," though they would not term their traditions as "Oral Torah.") Both sides have their proof-texts, and a brief blog entry cannot hope to address all of them, but I will nevertheless risk throwing my two cents into the mix.

In Dr. Kinzer's paper (p. 3), he writes:

The Torah requires a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life. This is due in part to the lack of detail in its legislation. As Michael Fishbane notes, “frequent lacunae or ambiguities in their legal formulation tend to render [biblical]…laws exceedingly problematic – if not functionally inoperative – without interpretation.” Thus, the Torah forbids all work (melachah) on Shabbat, but it nowhere defines the meaning of melachah. Similarly, it commands that we “afflict ourselves” on Yom Kippur, but it does not tell us what this means in practice.

On the surface, the idea of an oral tradition to supplement the Torah does make a certain amount of sense. After all, the culture in Biblical times was primarily oral, the written word being both difficult and very expensive to distribute. It also makes sense that there were certain details of the ritual commands that were not recorded in the Torah, details that were best passed on by demonstration (i.e., orally) rather than in a written form. Explaining in text and without diagrams (which would be more prone to error in re-copying) the correct way to cut an animal’s throat so that it suffered as little as possible and to remove the most blood would take a page or more of text or a large number of technical terms whose meanings could be lost in later centuries due to lack of common use, whereas teaching one’s children the correct way would take but a few demonstrations and a few more times letting them do it under supervision. (See here for a longer discussion.)

However, having said that, Scripture requires that such "supplementary instruction" be the exception rather than the rule. Joshua 8:35 sates, "There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel with the women and the little ones and the strangers who were living among them." If we take this with rabbinic literalness, this leaves the way open for additional demonstrations that Moses made that were not read, but it does not leave open the way for additional words comprising an Oral Torah.

Kinzer points out, as many do, that the Oral Torah does not require direct transmission from Moses, but only the authority that the L-RD, through Moses, gave to Israel's judges to make binding rulings (Deu. 17:8-13). This is very true; however, this command only provides that there would develop an oral torah, not the existence of the Oral Torah.

What do I mean by this? Simply put, Torah provides a framework, but as Kinzer points out, it leaves numerous "gaps." Kinzer assumes that these gaps must be filled in a particular way in order for Torah to be carried out. Let me suggest to the contrary that G-d left these gaps open so that they could be filled in different ways, reflecting different cultural traditions.

Let us take the example of Yom Kippur which Kinzer raised: What does it mean to "afflict" ourselves in obedience to Lev. 16:31? The Hebrew word, anah עחה, can mean "afflict" (as in Gen. 31:50), but can also mean to "humble" or "submit" (Gen. 16:9). The traditional Jewish understanding is that this means to fast, as well as forgo all pleasures (such as bathing, leather footwear, etc.). However, is this the Biblically required practice? Consider Isa. 58:5-7:

Is it a fast like this which I choose, a day for a man to humble himself? Is it for bowing one's head like a reed And for spreading out sackcloth and ashes as a bed? Will you call this a fast, even an acceptable day to the L-RD? Is this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free And break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

So then, we see that even the prophets understood that fasting, while not a wrong way to submit one's self to G-d (cf. Mat. 6:16f), is not the primary interpretation of anah. Do we really require the Oral Torah to tell us how to properly afflict/humble ourselves on Yom Kippur?

Kinzer is correct that the Torah requires "a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life" (ibid.). However, where I believe we differ is that I do not see it as requiring just a single "living tradition," but rather as the framework for many living traditions--the traditions of every people, tribe, tongue, and nation. (As indeed there are actually many "living traditions" within the various sects of Judaism, and always have been.) If we try to claim that there can be only one correct "living tradition," then we fall into the error of the P'rushim (Pharisees) who criticized Yeshua's disciples for not following their tradition (Mat. 15:1-20).

I'm not writing as someone who wishes to divorce himself from Jewish tradition and halakha. On the contrary, I have dedicated myself to learning it and living it out. I believe that there is great value in adopting into our Messiah's culture. However, neither do I want to see the full richness of the Torah to continue to be lost: When all the nations live out the Torah, each adapting their cultural traditions to it and vice-versa, then we will truly see the Kingdom of Heaven, as well as the grand variety that the Eternal One loves (cf. Rev. 7:7ff).

Shalom!

Once again, we see that I'm a slacker

2007-07-05T19:49:00.000-04:00

It's pretty scary when you look at your blog and realize that it's been six weeks since you updated it. That's not to say that I've been totally slacking; I've written some good articles (at least I think they're good) for HebrewRoot. But in so doing, I've been neglecting the blog, which is just wrong. I don't have a huge readership (pretty small, so far), but I should treat it a lot better than I do.

One of the things that I'm planning to write for this blog soon is my thoughts on a paper written by Mark Kinzer that was brought to my attention by the Messianic Jewish Musings blog called "A Biblical Defense of 'Oral Torah'" (which can be found here for those who are interested). It's an interesting article, and not one which falls under the Hebrew Root site's mandate, so it's perfect for discussion here.

Again, sorry for the delay. Focusing on one site should not cause neglect to the other.

Shalom!

The Just-In-Time G-d

2007-05-16T03:44:00.000-04:00

As some may already be aware, I've been out of work since November (my old employer having been bought out by a Salt Lake City-based company). This is not a rant against the company, which treated me very fairly, and the severance, combined with my savings and unemployment, has kept me in rent, food, and gas as long as I was careful with my funds.

A little over two months ago, I interviewed for a technical writer contract with a small, start-up company. The interview went very well, but much to my discouragement, the owner of the company chose to sit on the project that I was bidding for. I went on to make other contacts and bid for other jobs, but while I had some good interviews which may yield contracts in the future, none of them came to fruition, increasing my discouragement.

As we came up on Passover, I felt the Spirit telling me that I would get the contract I wanted, but that it would not be until after my debate with Don so that I would have the time to help out with Passover and prepare for and go to the debate.

Yesterday, just ten days after getting back from Memphis, I got the email saying that the job was mine. It'll be a couple of weeks before I start--which will pretty much coincide with the end of my unemployment.

"Furthermore, we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called in accordance with His purpose" (Rom. 8:28). What Sha'ul doesn't point out here is that not only does ADONAI work everything out for our good, but He does it with just the right timing to a) demonstrate that He really is in control, and b) teach us to trust Him. If I had landed the contract two months ago, not only would it have made it very difficult to see to my ministerial duties during a particularly busy time, but I wouldn't have been able to see God's hand so clearly in my getting it.

Shalom!

Times of Refreshing

2007-05-13T02:19:00.000-04:00

We're rapidly coming up on Shavuot (Pentecost), the Feast of Weeks. For anyone in the eastern Metro Atlanta area, Beth HaMashiach will be celebrating Shavuot with a cookout at Brisco Park on Wednesday, May 23, from 4-8pm.

We Messianics are often accused of legalism or putting ourselves "under the law" when we observe G-d's Appointed Times. On the contrary, such times are the epitome of G-d's grace, not only offering us relaxation and refreshment (as I said to Pat Donahue during our debate, I don't need to be saved from having more holidays), but tell us in detail G-d's plan of salvation. In Passover, we celebrate the sacrifice of the Lamb; in Matzah, the removal of sin; in Firstfruits, the Resurrection of Yeshua as the Firstfruits of the Dead (1 Co. 15:20). Shavuot celebrates both the giving of the Torah on tablets of stone from Mt. Sinai and the giving of the Torah on our hearts by the Spirit in the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34--I'll do a more detailed write-up closer to the event).

I spend a lot of time emphasizing G-d's grace in my ministry. That surprises a lot of people, who assume (erroneously) that Grace is incompatible with Torah. But the simple fact is that if we lose sight of G-d's wondrous and incomparable grace, these times of refreshing that the Eternal has given for our blessing (cf. Mark 2:27) become instead a burden to us, something that we have to do rather than something that we look forward to get to do.

Shalom!

New Debate

2007-04-21T00:55:00.000-04:00

A couple of weeks after my debate with Pat Donahue (which, at the time of this writing, I've still not had a chance to edit the .mp3s for this website, for which I apologize; I'll put them up soon), I received an email from Pat introducing me to a friend of his who was interested in doing an online debate. Myles Davis and I have since exchanged numerous emails and phone calls, and I can say with all candor that he is a young man who is truly sold out to the L-RD, very well read, and a delight to converse with.

The debate, for those who are interested, can be found here.

Shalom!

Website Updates & Thoughts On Passover

2007-04-09T02:08:00.000-04:00

I know the Hebrew Root website hasn't exactly looked up-to-snuff lately, and everyone has my apologies for that. I took a good chunk of it down--broke it, really--while experimenting and deciding which direction to take the site in. I've now restored most of the links and functionality, and should have some new articles ready in the next few days.

This last weekend, Rabbi Gavri'el took me and some others to do a Passover Seder in Bremmon, GA (near the AL border). The Seder went very well, and our hosts were very gracious and welcoming.

I feel like we're in a time very much like that of King Josiah. In 2 Kings 22-23, we read how Hilkiah the High Priest discovered a long-lost treasure in the Temple of ADONAI: The scroll of the Torah. He presented the Torah to the king, who mourned, then sought a prophet (who told him that G-d would delay the time of judgment until after his reign). He then rededicated the realm to ADONAI and lead the whole nation together in keeping the Passover--something which had not been done since the time of the Judges, centuries before.

In the same way, the Ekklesia is rediscovering the Torah in the Temple of our fellowship. We are mourning and repenting from our past sin, particularly against our Jewish brothers and sisters. And now we see so many Christians from all denominations hungry to celebrate the Passover once again after so many centuries of absence. We pray that G-d hears our prayers and sends a time of refreshing, just as He did for Josiah.

Shalom!

Passover

2007-03-31T12:20:00.000-04:00

Passover is coming up again. It's a time to remember how God has redeemed us by the blood of the Lamb, first from slavery to Egypt, and then from slavery to the world and sin. It is a time to partake of our Lord, to eat Him symbolically in the form of the lamb, the bread, and the wine, to act out taking Him into us physically to demonstrate the spiritual reality.

In most of the Christian world, the day to celebrate our Lord's sacrifice, Good Friday, is scarcely noted, all the attention being on Easter. For those of us who are Messianic, while we also observe the true Resurrection Day, the Feast of Firstfruits, Passover is the main event, as it were. It is the ultimate Lord's Supper, containing not only the bread and the wine, but every element that the talmidim (disicples) would have had at their Last Seder: The bitter herbs (which Judas "outed" himself when dipping into; Mat. 26:23), the haroset (a sweet mixture of apple, herbs, and wine which resembles the mortar the Hebrews used to make bricks), the Lamb, etc.

There are a few questions that those not in the Messianic movement often ask. For example, "Can you find any evidence in the New Testament that the Christians kept the Passover?" You mean besides the Last Seder? Indeed, I can. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Sha'ul writes,

Your boasting is not good. Don't you know the saying, "It takes only a little hametz (leaven) to leaven a whole batch of dough?" Get rid of the old hametz, so that you can be a new batch of dough, because in reality you are unleavened. For our Pesach lamb, the Messiah, has been sacrificed. So let us celebrate the Seder not with leftover hametz, the hametz of wickedness and evil, but with the matzah of purity and truth. (1 Co. 5:6-8, CJB)

One might argue, "Ah, but Paul meant that we should keep the Passover in a spiritual sense." I agree, we should keep it in a spiritual sense, just as we keep the Lord's Supper in a spiritual sense--but that doesn't mean that we forego keeping it physically as well. Every ritual in the Scripture is designed to let us "act out" something spiritual physically, so that full participation in God's blessings would not be limited to intellectuals and mystics, but be available to everyone.

The second question frequently asked is, "Don't you have to be circumcised to observe Passover?" Indeed you do (Exo. 12:48). However, the issue of circumcision is more than just a matter of a cutting of the flesh. By the 1st Century CE, it was an entire rabbinic ceremony by which a Gentile ceased to be a Greek, a Roman, etc., and became a full Jew, expected to keep all of the Torah and the Jewish traditions. It was believed that only the circumcised Jews could be saved (see Acts 15:1), basically excluding Gentiles from God's Kingdom. Now note that in Exodus 12:48, it does not say that the foreigner becomes a Jew when he is circumcised, nor does the ritual act make him a citizen of Israel. When the Apostles discouraged physical circumcision in favor of spiritual circumcision, they were dealing with a rabbinical tradition that committed the sin of adding to the Torah (cf. Deu. 12:32) and of Gentile exclusion.

It is wholly necessary for anyone celebrating God's deliverance of His people to be numbered among and fully identified with those people. However, in Col. 2:11, we are told that we are indeed circumcised spiritually ("without hands") when we trust in the Messiah, whether we are Jew ("circumcised" physically) or Gentile ("uncircumcised"). Therefore we are grafted in to Israel (Rom. 11), adopted into the family of Abraham (Rom. 4:11f, Gal. 3:29), whether or not we have been circumcised under the extra-Biblical ceremony that the non-believing Jewish rabbis and community would recognize.

Besides, if Sha'ul told the Corinthians, a mixed congregation (ch. 7-9) to keep the Passover, it must be appropriate for all believers to observe it. Any other decision would re-erect the wall of separation (Eph. 2:14) that Messiah came to break down.

And finally, the question arises whether it is appropriate to have lamb, when the Temple has been destroyed these last 2000 years (cf. Deu. 16:2). Many Messianic Jews do forgo lamb and substitute another meat in accordance with Jewish tradition and their own understanding about the requirement to have the lamb only in Jerusalem. That's fine, and it's possible that they are right. Now, it is correct that the proper Passover sacrifice, like all sacrifices (Deu. 12), must be offered only in Jerusalem at the Temple. However, as Christian commentators have so often observed, our proper sacrifice has already been offered in the proper place.

Therefore, to us, the Passover is no longer a proper sacrifice, but a memorial: "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19). Note that Yeshua does not repeat that formula for the wine, and yet every Christian considers it to include the wine in the Lord's Supper. Messianics understand it it include the whole of the Passover Seder as well, and at Beth HaMashiach, we believe it to include the lamb as well.

To those readers who have never experienced the joy of having the Passover Seder, I greatly encourage you to do so. It was one of the three life-changing events that led me to becoming Messianic, for truly, every single element speaks of our Lord.

Shalom!

Sabbath Debate After-Report

2007-03-28T19:05:00.000-04:00

On Sunday March 25, 2007, Patrick Donahue (BibleDebates.info) and I debated the resolution, “The Sabbath is no longer binding for believers.” Pat of course took the affirmative position and I took the negative (double-negative?) position. We should have the audio up on the HebrewRoot site soon for those who are interested.

I have to confess that this was the first public debate that I’ve been in since college; all of my other debates have been informal affairs online. I am very grateful to Pat for the opportunity, as well as to all of those who came to support us from both synagogue and church. And finally, I’m grateful to Rabbi Gavri’el for his support in putting on the debate.

As always in such a format, there were arguments that I simply didn’t get around to addressing or which I had to address so briefly that I’m not sure the audience picked up on it; there were also missed opportunities, thrusts and ripostes that occurred to me only after the debate. I’m sure Pat would say the same. Nevertheless, I’ve been told that I did a fine job of defending my position. Many of my arguments have appeared on this blog and on Hebrewroot.com already; others will be appearing soon.

Pat’s strategy was to attempt to establish that the Sabbath was part of the “Old Law” and that the Law had been done away with. Many of his arguments have been refuted on HebrewRoot; others I have yet to write articles for. He opened with a very rapid-fire presentation designed to put me on the defensive and leave me scrambling to just keep up with trying to counter his arguments, without any time left to really present my own. As a result, I countered what I felt were the essential arguments and ignored others while I built up my own argument.

My position hinged on three main thrusts: 1) Yeshua kept the Sabbath as well as the whole Torah, and commanded us to do the same (Mat. 5:17-19); 2) the Apostles likewise keep the Sabbath and the Torah; and 3) so why then should we who are saved by grace not follow their example? I also showed from Hebrews 4 that we are indeed told in the NT that there still is a “Sabbath-keeping” on the seventh day for the people of God and showed from Isaiah (56:2-7 and 66:23) that the “foreigners,” the Gentiles, were called to keep the Sabbaths and Rosh Chodeshim (New Moons).

As always in such public debates, opinions will doubtless vary on who won. I’m sure Pat would agree with me that if we inspired those watching and listening to thought and to digging into their Bibles for themselves, that G-d was the true winner here. As it should be.

Shalom!

Updates to Hebrew Root

2007-03-14T05:50:00.000-04:00

Tonight (technically, this morning) I put up the first major changes to the Hebrew Root website. Among them, I accidentally removed the bookstore link, and it's a bit late (or early) for me to try to figure out what I did wrong.

On the plus side, I've added several new articles, many of which are expansions of articles first posted here, others of which are brand new. Just click articles and look for the (new) tags.

Shalom!

Stolen Sign

2007-03-05T13:28:00.000-05:00

We've been hanging a banner advertising the synagogue off of 78 from a couple of steel posts sunk into the ground, putting it up either Thursday or Friday and taking it down Saturday night. Since we're only putting it up for a couple of days at a time, it counts as temporary advertising and we don't have to get a permit for it.

So I go out Saturday night after service to retrieve the sign. The banner was gone.

The bungee cords securing it to the posts were gone.

The posts were gone.

That's right, folks. Somebody hated our banner so much that they not only stole it, but also stole the metal posts that it was attached to just to make it that much more difficult and expensive for us to replace it. Hopefully I'll be able to at least find the posts tossed into the bushes on the side of the road in the daylight.

*chuckle* It's almost funny that our first act of vandalism (and we've been expecting this sort of thing) was so petty.

Hebrew Root & Other Excitement

2007-02-27T15:02:00.000-05:00

Once again, I've managed to go a whole month without posting. That's not to say that I've not been working--just the opposite, in fact.

I've taken over the Hebrewroot.com website for Yeshua HaMashiach Ministries, and I've been busy this last month working on articles (many of which are expanded on from posts I've made here). I'm having to brush up on my Frontpage and html skills, which I've not used in forever, as well, so the changes will be small at first. I'm planning on adding several articles and revamp the FAQ in the next couple of days and saving the redesign of the site for later.

I've also got two debates coming up. On March 25th, I'll be debating Pat Donahue of the Church of Christ on whether the Sabbath is still binding for believers in the Messiah ("binding" in the sense of "Honor thy father and thy mother" being binding--as a matter of what we're supposed to do as believers, not a matter of salvation). The debate will be held at Beth HaMashiach so anyone in the east Atlanta area who is interested is more than welcome to attend.

The second debate, to be held May 1st-4th in Memphis, TN, will be between Don Preston and myself covering two aspects of preterism (the belief that all or nearly all Biblical prophecy was fulfilled at or before the 70 AD destruction of the Temple) vs. futurism (the belief that a significant portion of Biblical prophecy refers to our own future). Don's announcement of the event can be seen on his website here.

I want to say up front that both of these men are dedicated believers in Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ, and that they have never been anything but perfect gentlemen and loving brothers in the Lord. All of us are agreed that we want these debates to be God-pleasing and edifying to the body, not mudslinging bouts. We want to demonstrate that brothers in the Lord can disagree agreeably and discuss these issues in a rational and polite fashion.

Shalom!

Long Absence and a Linguistic Question

2007-01-18T13:17:00.000-05:00

Whew. It's been a long few months. I have to apologize for not updating in forever; to be honest, the issue hasn't so much been time as emotional burnout for reasons that have nothing to do with this blog. For those who don't already know me personally, I got hit by two major slams in November and early December: First, I was laid off from my job, which was relocated to Salt Lake City, and second, my girlfriend, a woman who I loved very much and hoped to marry one day, broke up with me.

I'm still hunting for a job, but I've got some good leads, so I'm not worried in the long term and I've emotionally moved on from the break-up enough to date someone else, so don't think I'm trying to throw a pity-party. I'm just explaining the long absence. Fortunately, I have been writing material for the Beth HaMashiach website which will be going up shortly after a long-needed revamp, and much if not all of that material will probably get posted here first.

But you didn't come to hear me whine about my personal life, so let's get into something technical.

We had a gentleman write in to the ministry to object to something in the testimony of Rabbi Leopold Cohn, D.D.--specifically, the way he rendered Malachi 3:1 in the section entitled, "A New Creature": "Behold I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Angel of the Covenant whom ye delight in: behold He has already come, saith the Lord of Hosts."

The gentleman in question objected that every translation he had available to him translated the end of the verse, "behold He comes" (present tense) and expressed his concern over what he saw as a blatant mistranslation. However, the problem is not a mistranslation on Rabbi Cohn's or the writer of the article's part, but rather an issue that faces all translations of Biblical Hebrew.

Technically speaking, Hebrew does not generally have a past, present, and future tense like English does (though there are a couple of exceptions to that rule; e.g., hayah, "he is," hoveh, "he was," and yihyeh "he will be"). Instead, words are described as either "perfect," having been completed, or "imperfect," not yet having been completed. A "perfect" verb may be translated in either the past or present tense, depending on the context and the translator's choice.

In this case, we have two different conjugations of the same word:

"Look! I am sending my messenger to clear the way before me; and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come (yabou) to his temple. Yes, the messenger of the covenant, in whom you take such delight––look! Here he comes (ba)," says ADONAI–Tzva'ot. (Mal. 3:1, CJB)

The first instance of "come" is constructed in the imperfect tense, and so is translated in our future tense, "will come." The second, however, is constructed as a perfect verb, and so can be translated either in the past or present tense. Most translations use the present tense because it avoids confusion and makes the sentence flow smoothly, and that's undoubtedly the best choice. However, Rabbi Cohn would almost certainly have been reading the passage in the original Hebrew, and so translated the perfect verb "has already come" in his mind when he read it-- and this is a perfectly valid translation.

We find a similar translation issue in Psalm 118:26, Barukh Haba b'Shem ADONAI, or, "Blessed is He who comes in the Name of ADONAI." We translate Haba, "the (one who) came/comes," in the present tense, but we understand it to refer to Yeshua and use the phrase as if it were in the past tense.

In short, there's no error on Rabbi Cohn's part, just a translation issue which a little knowledge of Biblical Hebrew clears up. The interested reader may find this page to be of use, since it deals with the issue of tenses in Messianic prophecy, as well as the Blue Letter Bible, where he can find the original Hebrew as well as some language tools (including Thayer's Lexicon) to look into the issue himself.

Shalom

Oops

2006-10-24T10:31:00.000-04:00

Man, where does the time go? Seemed like just yesterday that I was composing notes for Sukkot, then . . . nothing. I completely dropped the ball on turning them into an article, both here and on FR.

On the up side, we're almost finished with the new synagogue, praise God. The walls are all up (with two exceptions due to plumbing work that needs to be done) and either painted or will be painted this week. The carpet's supposed to come in tomorrow, and we'll be putting the chairs in the sanctuary Thursday. We may actually hold service there this Friday, though the dedication won't be for another week or two. This weekend will be mostly spent moving stuff in (furniture, appliances, food, etc), and after that, while there will still be some decorating to be done, I'll have my weekends back to study and write.

My apologies to anyone who's been disappointed at the lackadaisical updates lately. Hopefully I'll be back on a at-least-one-update a week schedule soon.

Shalom.

Yom Kippur, Part 2: The Exodus and the Future

2006-09-29T10:42:00.000-04:00

The Exodus
The Feastdays of the Torah are divided into three groups—the spring feasts, Shavuot (Pentecost), and then the fall feasts—each of which is linked to a distinct stage of the Exodus and Israel’s instruction at Sinai. In addition, there are at least three minor feasts (that is, those which were not ordained at Sinai) which are also prophetically significant. The key to understanding the Feasts’ prophetic significance is to understand their historical significance.

When YHVH reorganized Israel’s calendar by proclaiming the month of the Pesach (Passover) to be the “beginning of months” (Exo. 12:2), He was establishing that His plan of salvation begins with the Passover. However, to truly understand God’s plan, we begin our brief study not with the Passover, but with the six “silent” months which separate the Passover from the previous Sinai-ordained Feastday, Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles. Within this “silent period” lie two minor Feasts: Hanukkah, which celebrates the victory of Israel over the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Purim, which celebrates her victory over the forces of Haman some three centuries earlier as is described in the book of Esther. Hanukkah has an eschatological significance which will be explored in another article, but for now it is enough to note the element these two feasts share in common: Both celebrate YHVH’s “hidden” protection of and provision for His people. Though He did not act with any obvious miracles like fire from the sky or supernatural plagues, nevertheless He brought His people to victory against overwhelming odds: In Purim by the placement of a Jewish queen, and in Hanukkah by giving the Jews might in battle.

These “silent” months between Sukkot and Pesach correspond to the 430 “silent years” which lead up both to the Passover of the Exodus (Gal. 3:17) and the Passover of the Messiah. Both periods were characterized by the lack of a true prophet to lead the people, “a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of YHVH" (Amos 8:11). God had not forgotten His people, but it probably felt to them like He had.

When YHVH fulfilled His promise to redeem His people from bondage, it was through the Passover and the death of a Lamb. God’s people were set free from Egypt via the blood of the lamb painted on their doorposts, so that they would not die in God’s wrath. Likewise, God’s people were set free from sin by the blood of the Lamb painted on their hearts, so that they would not die in God’s wrath. The seven days of the Feast of Matzah, in which all the leaven had to be removed from Israel’s houses and no leaven could be eaten, represents the quick removal of Israel from Egypt (in which there was no time to make leavened bread) and the complete removal of all sin in our lives by the sacrifice of Yeshua as we flee the ways of the world.

In the third month after Israel’s departure from Egypt, they arrived at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19:1). There God descended on the mountain in fire, with the sound of a shofar (vv. 16ff), and called Moses up the mountain to begin giving him the Torah. According to Jewish tradition, the day that this happened was the day of Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks, a date consistent with the Biblical record. Like HaBikkurim, the Feast of Firstfruits for the barley harvest, on which Messiah was raised as the Firstfruits of the dead, Shavuot is a firstfruits festival for the wheat harvest. On the first Shavuot, the firstfruits of the nation of Israel began receiving the Torah. On Shavuot after the death and resurrection of the Messiah, the firstfruits of the Church began receiving the Torah written on their hearts by the giving of the Spirit of God in the form of fire and with a great sound (Jer. 31:33, Ezk. 36:26-27, Acts 2:3ff).

After giving Moses the first commandments, the Lord called him back up the mountain to receive further instruction, and Moses remained with Him for forty days (Exo. 24:18). It was during this period that Aaron led the people in the sin of making and worshiping the golden calf. When Moses descended again from the mountain and saw this, he smashed the stone tablets on which God had written His commandments, signifying that Israel had broken the covenant they had made to follow all of God’s commands, and many in Israel died, both at the hands of the Levites whom Moses commanded to take arms against their kinsmen, and by a plague sent by God. Moreover, Moses removed the Tent of Meeting (not the Tabernacle, which had not yet been built, but a different tent in which Moses lived and met with YHVH; Exo. 33:7ff) to outside the camp, signifying that the people’s sin was great enough that God had removed the visible place which was the focal point of Israel’s worship and His Presence.

The parallel is not difficult to understand: Forty years after Yeshua ascended into Heaven, Israel still had not repented as a body from her “golden calf.” Just as Israel in the Exodus fell into the sin of worshipping God in the manner of their tradition (in this case, image-based worship), which they learned while in Egypt, instead of worshipping God in the manner in which He had commanded them, Israel in the first century fell into the sin of worshipping God in the manner of their traditions rather than doing so through the Messiah as He had commanded them. While the details differed, the essential core of the sin was the same.

So was the punishment. As Israel in the Exodus was punished by the sword and plague, so Israel in 70 AD was punished by the sword and plague. And as Israel in the Exodus had the Tent of Meeting removed by their prophet, Moses, so Israel in the first century had the Temple removed by the prophet after Moses, Yeshua HaMashiach. The destruction of both Temples took place on Tishbi b’Av, or the 9th of the month of Av. While it cannot be proven, the timing of the Golden Calf incident makes it quite possible that Tishbi b’Av is the day on which Moses removed the Tent of Meeting as well.

In the Exodus sin, God’s fury was so great that He said to Moses, “Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation” (Exo. 32:10). YHVH-Tzva’ot, the LORD of Hosts, was actually planning to destroy the whole nation and start over with Moses and his children! This is, in fact, what Replacement Theology claims that God did to Israel in the first century: destroyed them, and replaced them with the Messiah’s “children,” the Church.

Those who believe that God has cast away His chosen nation need to take another look at Exodus. Moses, who had not joined in the sin of the people, interceded for Israel so that God would not utterly destroy them, though He did punish them, even (temporarily) taking away their place of worship. Are we to think that Yeshua did any less, or that His intercession for Israel would be any less heard? And notice the basis on which Moses interceded for Israel: Not on the basis of their obedience or repentance, but on the basis of YHVH’s Name—that is, His reputation—and His promises (ibid., vv. 12-13). It is on this same basis that YHVH has already begun returning Israel to her land: “Thus saith the Lord YHVH; ‘I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for Mine holy Name's sake . . .’” (Ezk. 36:22).

The Future Fulfillment
“Okay,” the amillennialist answers, “clearly not all of the Jews were destroyed, but the Temple was, and since we are now the Temple of God, there will be no other.” Again, keep reading. After seeing to the punishment of Israel and removing the Tent of Meeting, Moses was told by God, “And I will send an angel before thee . . . for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way” (Exo. 33:2, 3). But Moses, not content that a lesser angel go with Israel, returned up the mountain, and interceded with God for another forty days, going without food or water, until YHVH relented and agreed to send His Presence with Israel. The form in which His Presence went with Israel was in the pillar of fire and cloud which was intimately connected with the Tabernacle:

The Tabernacle of Israel was known by several names. . . The name dwelling from Heb. mishkan, from shakan, to “like down,” a “dwelling,” connected itself with the Jewish, though not scriptural, word Shekinah, as describing the dwelling place of the divine glory. (Unger, F., The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, R.K. Harrison, ed. [Moody, 1988] “Tabernacle of Israel,” p. 1238)

According to the Talmud, the day on which Moses returned with the second set of stone tablets, showing that YHVH had forgiven Israel and restored fellowship with them, was the day of Yom Kippur (Tractate Taanit 30b), and the forty days that he fasted before God correspond with the forty days of T’shuva (Repentence) that are traditionally observed leading up to the Day of Atonement. (This forty-day period of fasting may be the same forty-day period that Yeshua spent fasting and being tested in the wilderness after His baptism.)

Likewise, the day on which Yeshua will return to restore His fellowship with Israel, and direct them in building a Temple greater than that which they built on their own, just as Moses directed Israel in building a Tabernacle greater than the former Tent of Meeting which was taken away from the camp, will be on Yom Kippur. Like the Levitial High Priest emerging from the Holy of Holies to show that God had accepted the sacrifice of the goat on the people’s behalf, Yeshua will emerge from the Holy of Holies in Heaven to show Israel that God has accepted His sacrifice on their behalf.

Yom Kippur is not yet complete. Our High Priest is hidden from our eyes, beyond the veil, making intercession for us day and night, but He has not yet emerged to show all Israel that His blood-stained garments have been turned as white as snow, proving that the Father has accepted the High Priest’s sacrifice on behalf of all Israel, not just the remnant that now believe. When He does, carrying the sign of a covenant restored before Israel even as Moses did, then the Temple promised by Ezekiel will be built, just as the Tabernacle was.

When will the High Priest come forth? On the last day of Daniel’s Seventieth Week when Israel and Jerusalem will “make reconciliation for iniquity” (Dan. 9:24). The word for reconciliation, kaphar, is most often translated “atonement.”

With Israel’s sins atoned for, the way will be made for the final stage of the Messiah’s reconciliation of all things to Himself. Next we will study Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, when Yeshua will be officially crowned King over all the nations . . . on His birthday.

Shalom.

Yom Kippur, Part 1: Traditions and Blood

2006-09-29T01:23:00.000-04:00

In my first article on the Fall High Holy Days, we saw that the Feast of Trumpets is intimately linked by both Yeshua and Sha’ul with Yeshua’s Second Coming on the clouds of heaven, and saw that this corresponded with the expectations of the rabbis. Now we come to the second of the Fall Feastdays, and the holiest day of the Jewish—which is to say, Biblical—calendar: Yom Kippur takes place on the tenth of Tishri, nine days after Rosh Hashanah.

On that day, the high priest would put on a special coat of white linen and carry out a very unusual sacrifice.

And he shall take the two goats, and present them before Yhvh at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for Yhvh, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which Yhvh's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before Yhvh, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. . . .

And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. (Lev. 16:7-10, 20-22)

Today, the sacrifices which were the centerpiece of the Levitical ceremony cannot be held of course, but this does not make it impossible to observe the day. Like Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur is not a pilgrimage Feast: No one was required to be in Jerusalem (other than the cohenim, or priests) for its service. However, those outside of Jerusalem still bore the responsibility for not doing any work, gathering in a holy convocation (i.e., in their home synagogues), and for denying themselves (Lev. 23:27ff). Out of these three commands, modern Judaism has built its customs.

After a final, festive meal in the afternoon before Yom Kippur, Jews the world over dress in white in remembrance of the High Priest’s white linen robe that he would wear within the Holy of Holies, and at sundown go to what is known as the Kol Nidre (“All Vows”) service. The Kol Nidre is a prayer sung to a haunting cadence, which asks God to release one from any wrongful oaths taken that year. It dates to the Middle Ages, when Jews were forcibly converted to Christianity; they would ask God to release them of the vows taken at the point of a sword. Another traditional song is Avinu Malkeynu (“Our Father, Our King”), which translates as follows:

Our Father and Our King
Our Father and Our King
Our Father and King
Be merciful to us
Be merciful unto us.

For we have done no deeds
Commending us unto You
For we have no deeds commending us to You
Be merciful, save us, we pray.

Synagogue services typically run all day, with observant Jews petitioning God to forgive their sins. Fasting, denying one’s self, is mandated by Torah, and observant Jews will usually refrain from any comforts at all during the day, including bathing, wearing leather shoes, etc. It should be noted that Isa. 58 and Mat. 6:16-18 both speak against fasting to be seen and fasting in lieu of true repentance:

“Wherefore have we fasted,” say they, “and Thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge?” Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.

Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to Yhvh? Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? (Isa. 58:3-7)

True self-denial is not the mere restraint from food, though it may include fasting from food (Mat. 6:16-18, 1 Co. 7:5).

Yom Kippur ends with the Neilah (“The Closing of the Gates”) service and a final blast from the shofar. It is said by the rabbis that the gates of Heaven through which our prayers of repentance can rise close at this time, sealing one’s fate for the year. Of course, in the Messiah Yeshua, we may always “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16). However, there is still an eschatological truth to the rabbinical belief, discussed in the previous article on Rosh Hashanah.

Of course, it may rightly be asked in what sense can one be atoned for on this day without blood, “for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11). One who believes in the Messiah Yeshua, of course, looks to Him and His perfect sacrifice for their atonement. Non-Messianic Jews follow the belief established by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that acts of righteousness provide atonement (Avot de Rabbi Nathan 4:18). However, even in the Jewish community, the need for blood redemption still runs deep. In the ceremony called Kaparot, practiced only in very Orthodox circles, a chicken is waived over the head three times as the man says,

“This is my substitute, my vicarious offering, my atonement. This fowl shall meet death, but I shall enjoy a long, happy life.” After reading several selections from Job and the Psalms, the person lays his hand on the head of the bird as a symbol of identification, it is killed as his substitute, and given to the poor for their final meal before the fast. (Howard and Rosenthal, The Feasts of the Lord, p. 126)

Why is a chicken used instead of a goat, for example? Because goats, bulls, oxen, rams, and lambs could only be offered for sacrifice in the Temple, so the rabbis forbade the use of any animal which might make it appear that one was continuing the sacrificial system. (Turkey or chicken is substituted for lamb for the Passover dinner in most Ashkenazi homes for the same reason.)

In Biblical times, of course, a bull and two goats were the sacrifices made. The bull was offered for the sins of the High Priest and the other priests, so that he could be purified before entering into God’s presence. The goats, one for Yhvh and one for the scapegoat would then atone for Israel. The word “scapegoat” is a translation of Azazel. Keil and Delitzsch explain the significance of the word:

Azazel, which only occurs in this chapter, signifies neither “a remote solitude,” nor any locality in the desert whatever (as Jonathan, Rashi, etc., suppose); nor the “he-goat” . . . The words, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel, require unconditionally that Azazel should be regarded as a personal being, in opposition to Jehovah. . . We have not to think, however, of [just] any demon whatever, who seduces men to wickedness in the form of an evil spirit, as the fallen angel Azazel is represented as doing in the Jewish writings . . . but of the devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons. The desert and desolate places are mentioned elsewhere as the abode of evil spirits (Isa. 13:21 and 34:14; Mat. 12:43; Luk. 11:24; Rev. 18:2). (Keil, Johann and Franz Delitzsch, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, [e-Sword version 7.0.0, ed. Rick Meyers, 2000-2003])

And yet, while the “scapegoat” was, in effect, given over to Azazel, to the very Enemy himself, the “two goats . . . must be altogether alike in look, size, and value; indeed, so earnestly was it sought to carry out the idea that these two formed parts of one and the same sacrifice, that it was arranged that they should, if possible, even be purchased at the same time” (Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, p. 248). So all speculations that the scapegoat might represent Satan or the Antichrist or some other evil entity fall short. What could these two goats signify other than the dual-natured Messiah Yeshua? He carried away all our sin, just as the scapegoat would be sent into the wilderness with the sins of Israel: “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us” (Psa. 103:12). Unlike the lambs, goats, and bulls that died on the altar, our Messiah rose again. Thus, like the two goats, He was both sacrificed and yet lives.

A red ribbon was tied in the horns of the scapegoat. When the goat was led out before the people, if God accepted the sacrifice, the ribbon would miraculously turn white as a reminder of the promise that “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isa. 1:18). It is most interesting that for the forty years between the sacrifice of Yeshua and the destruction of the Temple, the scarlet ribbon did not turn white!

Forty years before the Temple was destroyed the chosen lot was not picked with the right hand, nor did the crimson stripe turn white, nor did the westernmost light burn; and the doors of the Temple’s Holy Place swung open by themselves, until Rabbi Yochanon ben Zakkai spoke saying: “O most Holy Place, why have you become disturbed? I know full well that your destiny will be destruction, for the prophet Zechariah ben Iddo has already spoken regarding you saying: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour the cedars'” (Zech. 11:1). (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 39b)

Hebrews 8 -10 explains that when Messiah completed His sacrifice on the cross, He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, of which that of the Tabernacle and the Temple were merely copies, to complete the Yom Kippur ritual of atonement. The sacrifice was not accepted because it was being offered by the wrong High Priest:

For Messiah is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others . . . But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. (Heb. 9:24-25, 10:12-13)

But if this is the sole and sufficient fulfillment of the feastday of Yom Kippur, then we have a problem. In every other feastday that we have seen fulfilled in history, the fulfillment took place on that day. Yeshua was offered up on Passover as the Lamb of God, thus taking away our sin just as leaven was removed from the Hebrews’ houses during the seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. He rose as the firstfruits of the dead (cf. 1 Co. 15:20-23) on Sfirat HaOmer or HaBikkurim, the Feast of Firstfruits. The Church was given the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) in power on Shavuot, or Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks. And we have seen that His Second Coming seems likely to occur on a Rosh Hashanah in order to fulfill that feastday. Why then would the Day of Atonement be out of sequence?

Next: Part 2: The Exodus and the Future

Rosh Hashanah

2006-09-20T03:53:00.000-04:00

As many of you already know, we are entering into the fall High Holy Days, comprised of the Feasts of Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles. Just as the spring Feastdays celebrate the First Coming of Messiah Yeshua, and Shavuot (Pentecost) celebrates the giving of the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) to the Ekklesia in between the visitations of Yeshua, the Fall Feastdays look forward to His Second Coming—and in particular, the Feast of Trumpets looks forward to His Glorious Appearance in the clouds of heaven!

The day which this year falls on September 23 (beginning at sundown the previous night) is known by many names, but is little understood. The most commonly used today is Rosh Hashanah, the Head of the Year or New Year, and is regarded as the start of the Jewish civil calendar. (The religious calendar begins on the first of Nisan, fourteen days before Passover, in accordance with Exo. 12:2.) For this reasons, Jews will greet each other with the phrase, “L’shana tova u-metukah,” “May you have a good and sweet new year” or simply “Shanah tova,” “A good year.” In anticipation of this sweet new year, it is customary to eat a sweet fruit, like an apple or carrot dipped in honey.

The Talmud records the belief that “In the month of Tishri, the world was created” (Rosh Hashanah 10b), and its probably due to this belief that it became known as the Jewish New Year. The belief that the world was created on Rosh Hashanah came out of an anagram: The letters of the first word in the Bible, “In the beginning . . .” (B’resheit) can be rearranged to say, “1 Tishri” (Aleph b’Tishri). Perhaps because so little is directly said in Scripture about this day—unlike all of the other Feastdays, there is no historical precedent given to explain why Rosh Hashanah should be celebrated—the rabbis also speculated that Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Samuel were all born on this day.

However, that’s not it’s Biblical name, which is Yom Teruah, the Day of the [Trumpet] Blast:

And YHVH spake unto Moses, saying, “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, ‘In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing (Heb. zikrown teruah) [of trumpets], an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto YHVH.’” (Lev. 23:23-25)

And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing (teruah) [the trumpets] unto you. (Num. 29:1)

In each of these passages, I’ve placed “trumpets” in brackets because it’s not actually in the Hebrew text; however, teruah can and usually does mean to sound the trumpet (though it can mean to shout with a voice as well) and the use of a trumpet on this day is considered so axiomatic that there is literally no debate in Jewish tradition on the matter. Specifically, the trumpet used is the shofar. The shofar is traditionally always made from the horn of a ram, in honor of the ram that God substituted for Isaac, and never from a bull’s horn, in memory of the sin of the golden calf.

The shofar first appears in Scripture as heralding the visible appearance of God coming down on Mt. Sinai to meet with His people (Ex. 19:16-19). It is also linked with His Coming in Zec. 9:14 and with Him going up (making aliyah) to Jerusalem in Psa. 47:5. Small wonder then that Yeshua said He would Come again with the sound of a trumpet, a shofar, in Mat. 24:31, which is echoed by Sha’ul (Paul) in 1 Th. 4:16 and 1 Co. 15:52. Indeed, many commentators have recognized that by “the last trump,” Sha’ul was referring to the final shofar blast, called the Tekia HaGadol, of the Feast of Trumpets.

This visitation by YHVH is closely associated with the second of this Feastdays names: Yom Zikkroun, the Day of Remembrance. This is not primarily meant to be a day when the people remember God, but when God remembers His people—not that He has forgotten them, but in which He fulfills His promises to them by Coming to them. In Isa. 27:13, it is the instrument used to call God’s people Israel back to the Land. In Psalm 27, which is traditionally read in the month leading up to Yom Teruah, we see the Psalmist looking forward to God rescuing him from his enemies:

Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident . . .

For in the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion: in the secret of His tabernacle shall He hide me; He shall set me up upon a rock. . .

Among the rabbis, the shofar is often associated with the Coming of the Messiah and the Resurrection of the Dead as well. “According to the Alphabet Midrash of Rabbi Akiva, seven shofars announce successive steps of the resurrection process, with Zechariah 9:14 quoted as a proof text: ‘And Adonai the Lord will blow the shofar’” (Stern, David H., Jewish New Testament Commentary, 489f). “And it is the shofar that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to blow when the Son of David, our righteous one, will reveal himself, as it is said, ‘And the Lord GOD will blow the shofar’” (Tanna debe Eliyahu Zutta XXII). It’s interesting that the rabbis, without the benefit of the New Covenant writings, have come to the same conclusions as the Apostles: That YHVH would visit His people in the person of the Messiah and raise the dead on Yom Teruah (also in the Bablyonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 16b). On Yom Teruah, the shofar not only rouses the people from their complacency, but the very dead from their graves. (See Job 19:25-27, Isa. 26:19, and Dan. 12:2 for the Tanakh’s primary passages on the Resurrection.)

The shofar is an instrument that is very much associated with war (Jdg. 3:27, 2 Sa. 20:1, Neh. 4:18-22, Ezk. 33:3-6). It was used to destroy the walls of Jericho (Jdg. 6:20). In Joel 2:1, it sounds the start of the Day of the Lord, the time in which God will make war on His enemies: “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the Day of YHVH cometh, for it is nigh at hand” (cf. v. 15). This again matches perfectly with the NT, where Sha’ul describes the Lord’s coming with a trumpet immediately preceding the Day of the Lord (1 Th. 4:16, 5:2).

This brings us to the next name for this Feastday, Yom HaDin, Judgment Day. Not only did the shofar sound the call for war, but also the coronation of kings (2 Sa. 15:10; 1 Ki. 1:34, 29; 2 Ki. 9:13, 11:12-14). Therefore, the rabbis have always associated this day with God’s sovereign Kingship over all mankind: “On Rosh Hashanah all human beings pass before Him as troops, as it is said, ‘The LORD looketh from heaven; He beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of His habitation He looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth their hearts alike; He considereth all their works’” (Rosh Hashanah 6b, quoting Psa. 53:13-15). To remember God’s Kingship, it is traditional to eat round objects to remind us of God’s crown (oriental crowns being shaped as skullcaps instead of circlets). For example, challah is made to be round instead of braided as it normally is.

Because this day is associated with God’s judgment, it is also considered a time of repentance (t’shuva) in preparation for Yom Kippur. The Casting (Tashlikh) Ceremony, in which observant Jews gather together at the shores of oceans, lakes, and rivers and cast in stones and/or crumbs of bread to symbolize “casting off” their sins, is performed on this day to a prayer comprised of Mic. 7:18-20, Psa. 118:5-9, Psa. 33 and 130, and often finishing with Isa. 11:9.

He will turn again,

He will have compassion upon us;

He will subdue our iniquities;

And Thou wilt cast all their sins

Into the depths of the sea. (Mic. 7:19)

The Talmud (ibid.) goes on to say that on this day, all mankind is divided into three types of people. The wholly righteous were immediately written in the Book of Life (Exo. 32:33, Psa. 69:28) for another year. The wholly wicked were blotted out of the Book of Life, condemned to die in the coming year. Those in between, if they truly repented before the end of Yom Kippur, could likewise be scribed in the Book of Life for another year. For this reason, a common greeting at this time is “L’shana tova tikatevu,” which means, “May you be inscribed [in the Book of Life] for a good new year.”

The Bible, of course, is clear that one is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (cf. Php. 4:3; Rev. 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, and 21:27) not by one’s own righteousness, but by receiving the Messiah’s righteousness by faith, trusting in Him, and that there is no in-between; one either trusts God or one doesn’t. Nevertheless, a great eschatological truth is preserved for us in this rabbinical tradition. At the time of Yeshua’s Second Coming, all mankind will be divided into three groups. Those who have already trusted in the Messiah will be Resurrected and Raptured to be with Him immediately upon His Coming on the clouds of the sky. Those who have taken the mark of the Beast and have chosen to remain with the Wicked One will be slated to die in the Day of the Lord, which for reasons that are beyond the scope of this essay to address, I believe will last for about a year.

However, there will also be a third group, who neither had believed in the Messiah until they saw Him Coming on the clouds but who also had not taken the mark of the Beast. Many of these will be Jews, who will mourn at His coming and so have a fount of forgiveness opened to them (Rev. 1:7, Zec. 12:10-13:2)—most prominently, the 144,000 of Rev. 7 and 14. Others will be Gentiles who will be shown mercy because they showed mercy to the children of God (Mat. 25:31ff). These are given the opportunity to repent during the period between the fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonment, called the Days of Awe—a reference, I believe, to the Day of the Lord.

Finally, this day is known as Yom HaKeseh, the Hidden Day. It was a day that could not be calculated, only looked for. Ancient Israel kept its calendar simply by observing the phases of the moon. If a day were overcast, it might cause a delay in the observance of the beginning of the month, the new moon (Rosh Chodesh), the first tiny crescent of light. Every other Feast was at least a few days after the beginning of the month so that it could be calculated and prepared for in advance. For example, after the new moon that marked the beginning of the month of Nisan, the observant Jew knew that he had fourteen days to prepare for the Passover.

Not so Yom HaKeseh. In the absence of reliable astronomical charts and calculations (which were made only centuries after God commanded the Feasts to be observed), the Feast of Trumpets could be anticipated, estimated to be arriving soon, but until two or more witnesses reported the first breaking of the moon’s light after the darkest time of the month, no one knew “the day or hour.” Therefore, it was a tradition not to sleep on Rosh Hashanah, but to remain awake and alert, a tradition alluded to by Sha’ul: “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober” (1 Th. 5:4-6).

Because of the difficulty of alerting the Jews in the Diaspora when the Sanhedron had decreed the start of the Feast to be, it became traditional to celebrate the first and second day of Tishri together as Yoma Arikhta, “One Long Day.” Is this meant to remind us, perhaps, of when another Y’hoshua (Yeshua) won against his enemies because God cast down great hailstones (like the hailstones of Rev. 16:21) and called upon the Sun to stand still so that they would not escape (Jos. 10:10ff)?

Yom Teruah is a day which ultimately calls all of God’s people together in repentance in anticipation of the glorious Second Coming, in which He will once again visit His people in the Person of the Messiah Yeshua to Resurrect the dead, awaken the living, and judge all mankind together.

Shalom, and Maranatha!

The Gospel According to the Inner Circle: Chronology

2006-08-24T22:11:00.000-04:00

So far, this series has covered Yochanan's introductory description of Yeshua, His Being, and His Mission. Now, let's take a moment and look at how these two Gospel accounts (and by extension, the other two Synoptics) fit together. Much of the composition of this chronology is thanks to Holding's article on the subject.

It is altogether appropriate that any reconciliation of the Gospel accounts begin with Yochanan's introduction, which describes Yeshua's origin (if we can use that term of an Eternal Being) "in the beginning." However, we soon arrive at Yochanan HaTivlei (John the Baptist) describing seeing the Spirit descending on Yeshua as a dove, which is certainly a flashback to His Mikveh (immersion, baptism) as described in Mark 1. This begins the carefully placed time markers which describe the intricate interplay between the two, as Yochanan the Apostle seeks to fill in the gaps in Kefa's narrative (as delivered to us by Mark).

In the following timeline, I'm concentrating primarily on the actions, not the discourses, of Yeshua. This is in no small part because Yeshua, like any traveling preacher, reused His teachings and parables repeatedly, making the issue of when they were "really" delivered a moot point. I'll also leave aside the matter of the birth narratives, which are easily reconciled to each other and which I'll probably comment on closer to Sukkot.

It should also be noted that not all of the Gospel accounts are written in chronological order. While Luke claims to write an "orderly" (that is, in order, chronological) account (1:3), Matthew arranged his material largely by subject, and we are told by Papias regarding Mark's Gospel account:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. (quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, ch. 39)

Therefore, where Mark or Matthew's apparent chronology seems to contradict that of the other Gospel accounts, I'll tend to favor Luke and John. For example, Mark reports Yeshua's first exorcism after the calling of Kefa, Andrew, Yochanan, and Ya'akov (James), while Luke states that the exorcism happened first, so we'll follow Luke's chronology, since he was more concerned with the "when." For that reason, and because most of the material added by Matthew is in the form of discourses, we won't be referencing the book of Matthew all that much.

A rough chronology may be developed as follows. My apologies in advance; this is going to be a rather long post.

Introduction of the Word and Light of God (John 1:1-14)
Yochanan begins preaching in the wilderness (Mark 1:2-8, John 1:15-18)
Yeshua's Mikveh, or baptism (Mark 1:9-11)
Yeshua's forty days of temptation in the wilderness (Mark 1:12-13)
First meetings

Some time later, the priests and Levites come to question Yochanan, who tells them he is neither the Messiah, nor Eliyahu (Elijah, John 1:19-28).
The day after the inquiry, Yeshua returns to the Jordan, where He is identified as the Messiah by Yochanan to two of his disciples, one of whom is Andrew, Kefa's brother. They stay and converse with Him overnight, after which Andrew introduces Kefa to Yeshua (John 1:35-42).
The day after that, the four travel to Galilee, where Yeshua calls Philip, who makes introductions with Nathaniel (John 1:43-51).
The wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11)
A relatively brief stay in Capernaum (John 2:12)

The first Passover. Yeshua clears the Temple for the first time and is challenged by the Judean leadership. The midnight meeting with Nicodemus. (John 2:13-3:21)
Yeshua remains in Judea for a time, with His talmidim (disciples) immersing alongside Yochanan's, causing some jealously among the latter which Yochanan has to rebuke. (John 3:22-36)
As a result, Yeshua leaves Judea and passes through Samaria to get back to Galilee, meeting the woman at the well. (John 4:1-43)
After delaying with them for two days, He passes through Nazareth and is nearly thrown from a cliff when He declares Himself to be the fulfillment of prophecy (Luke 4:16-30, John 1:44).
At about this time, Yochanan is arrested (Mark 1:14-15).
Yeshua returns to Cana, where a nobleman asks Him to heal his son, which He does. This, according to the account, is Yeshua's second miracle. (John 1:46-54)
The calling of the fishers of men

Yeshua goes to Capernaum, where He begins His ministry of healing and casting out demons, including the man in the synagogue and Kefa's mother-in-law (Luke 4:31-44, Mark 1:23-34).
As a result, Yeshua has to use Kefa's fishing boat as a floating stage to address the crowds. The miracle of the fish and the calling of Kefa, Andrew, Yochanan, and Ya'akov. (Luke 5:1-12, Mark 1:16-22)

The Galilean ministry (Mark 1:39-6:6), which includes:

The Twelve are appointed. (Mark 3:13-20)
Yeshua is rejected by the P'rushim (Pharisees) and begins teaching only in parables (Mark 3:22-4:34)
Calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee (Mark 4:35-41)
Casting out Legion (Mark 5:1-20)
Healing the woman with the issue of blood and raising a little girl from the dead (Mark 5:21-43)

After this, Yeshua sends out the Twelve to operate on their own for a time (Mark 6:1-30).

While they are gone, He Himself goes up to Jerusalem for an unnamed Feastday and heals a paralytic on the Sabbath, defending His right to do so against the Pharisees (John 5).

The second Passover (John 6:4):

The Twelve regather and report their success, and Yeshua takes them across the Sea of Galilee to try to find a quiet place to rest. However, a crowd of 5,000 men followed them, prompting the first feeding miracle (Mark 6:31-44, John 6:1-15).
Yeshua walks on the sea (Mark 6:45-52, John 6:16-21).
Yeshua calls Himself the Bread of Life, possibly coinciding with the Feast of Matzah (Unleavened Bread, John 6:22-71).
A brief stay at Gennesaret (Mark 6:53-56)

The Second Galilean Ministry (John 7:1, Mark 6:56-9:50), which include:

The disputes with the Pharisees over halacha (how to apply Torah; Mark 7:1-23)
Yeshua and His talmidim withdraw to the border of Tyre and Sidon, where a Gentile woman asks for healing for her daughter (Mark 7:24-30).
Yeshua heals a deaf and dumb man (Mark 7:31-37).
The feeding of the 4,000 (Mark 8:1-9).
The Pharisees ask for a sign, a blind man healed outside Bethsaida (Mark 8:10-26)
Kefa's profession of faith (Mark 8:27-33)
The Transfiguration (Mark 9:1-13)

The Feast of Sukkot (John 7:2-53)

Yeshua teaches in the Temple (John 7:14-36)
On the last day of the eight-day feast, Yeshua proclaims Himself to be the source of the true living water (John 7:37)

Yeshua forgives an adulteress (John 8)
Healing a man born blind and subsequent discourse (John 9:1-10:21)
Hanukkah (John 10:22-39)
Yeshua withdraws to the region of the Jordan (John 10:40)
Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-53)
Yeshua again withdraws to the wilderness, to instruct His talmidim (John 11:54, Mark 9:30-32)
The last journey to Jerusalem:

Yeshua appoints the Seventy and sends them into Judea to announce His coming (Luke 10:1-24), while remaining in Capernaum (Mark 9:33)
Yeshua passes through Judea, teaching and healing, on His way to Jerusalem. (Luke 10:25-19:27, Mark 10)
Six days before Passover, Yeshua stays in Bethany. (John 12:1-11)

The Triumphal Entry, four days before Pesach, on Nisan 10 (Mark 11:1-11, John 12:12-50). This was probably on the Sabbath.
The clearing of the Temple on the following day, followed by two days of being tested by the leaders of Israel in the Temple. (Mark 11:12-44)
Yeshua leaves the Temple for the last time after denouncing Israel's leaders (Mat. 23) and delivers the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13) two days before Passover (Mark 14:1), or just before evening on Nisan 12.
Yeshua is anointed in Bethany at dinner after sundown on the 13th, after which Judas contracts to betray Him. (Mark 14:3-11)
The Third Passover:

The Last Supper (Mark 14:12-31, John 13-17)
Prayer and Arrest in the Garden of Gethsemene (Mark 14:32-52, John 18:1-12)
Yeshua's trials before the high priest and Pilate (Mark 14:53-15:15, John 18:12-19:15)
The Crucifixion and burial (Mark 15:16-47, John 19:16-42)

The Empty Tomb, three days later on a Sunday (Mark 16:1-11, John 20:1-18)
Yeshua meets two disciples on the Emmaeus road (Mark 16:12, Luke 24:13-35)
He appears to ten of the Eleven for dinner immediately after (John 20:19-23)
Eight days later, He appears to the Eleven, now including Toma (Thomas, John 20:24-29, Mark 16:14-18).
He appears to the Eleven on the Sea of Galilee (John 21)
The Ascension (Mark 16:19-20)

A few things of note: Right off the bat, we find ourselves confronted by the fact that there is no evidence that Yeshua's ministry lasted the traditional 3 1/2 years. There are three Passovers mentioned, which have only two years sandwiched between them. Previous to that, we have a period of (I believe, for reasons I'll get to in forthcoming articles) six months between Yeshua's baptism and the first Passover--during which, we see, He was rather quiet. He gathered only a few disciples and performed only a single miracle, and that under duress, as it were. It isn't until after Yochanan's arrest that Yeshua begins a ministry of miracles.

Why then do so many believe that Yeshua's ministry lasted a full year longer? The traditional view apparently came out of an erroneous interpretation of Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks--though it's surprising that so many Premillennialists have simply subscribed to that view instead of challenging it. It should be noted that the amillennialist view that Yeshua brought an end to sacrifice and offering in the Cross fails on other fronts, which I'll explain in a dedicated article someday--but the fact that the Bible does not give us a long enough ministry is just the final nail in the coffin.

Is it possible that the unnamed feast in John 5 is another Passover, thus giving us 3 1/2 years? If so, then we have a full year of Yeshua's ministry about which absolutely nothing is said. Moreover, the fact that this feast was not named suggests that it was one of the minor feasts, perhaps Hanukkah or Purim.

Is there a significance to the fact that Yeshua's active ministry was about two years long? I believe so. Remember that Israel wandered in the wilderness for forty years--but the first two years were spent at Mt. Sinai, during which they were all being taught by God and being given His Torah. The remaining 38 years were a time of testing and punishment for Israel's lack of faith at the end of which the last of the generation that failed to obey passed away. In the same way, for two years Israel was taught by God in the person of the Messiah Yeshua, after which were 38 years of testing and punishment, concluding with the destruction of the generation who rejected Him.

But just as God raised up a new generation of Israelites to follow Y'hoshua (Joshua) into the Land, He is also raising up a new generation of Israelites to follow Y'hoshua (the longer version of Yeshua).

Shalom

Mark Steyn: The axis of evenhandedness

2006-08-24T18:27:00.000-04:00

More Steyn goodness.

"The Jews are a peculiar people," wrote America's great longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer after the 1967 war. "Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem . . . But everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab . . . Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world."

That's an interesting question, isn't it? Is it that we hold Israel to a higher standard? Or is rather that in the postmodern era Israel--unlike Canada, Britain, France, New Zealand--is the only western nation that's found itself fighting an existential struggle? Let's take it as read that a lot of folks don't like Jews. The present conflict then is chiefly of significance as a study in whether the least enervated of western nations is capable of seeing off the terrorist proxies of nuclear Islamists. Because, if Israel can't hold off a resurgent Islam, what chance Norway or Belgium?

Shalom

How NOT To Get a Comment On My Blog

2006-08-22T19:35:00.000-04:00

This blog doesn't get many comments--which is fine, since its in no small part a resource for myself and a few of those in my congregation, like the youth group. But there's a reason that I moderate any comments that come in, and that reason is best illustrated by a comment I received last night.

For the record, the B'rit Chadasha Pages are here, first and foremost, to bring glory to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who manifested Himself in the flesh in the Person of Yeshua HaMashiach, who was the perfect sacrifice made in atonement for our sins. Therefore, while I would happily okay a comment that challenges my beliefs on any subject and respond to it (within a limited scope, since this is not primarily an apologetics site), I am most certainly not going to okay a comment that contains links back to a book which I consider blasphemous or which promotes a false messiah!

No, seriously, I'm not promoting your fringe book and/or website. Don't ask.

Secondly, if you're going to challenge my belief in the validity of Torah or even in the Messiah of Israel, don't do it with vague conspiracy theories and hollow calls for me to "keep an open mind." And certainly don't do it with emotional appeals. I build my beliefs on verifiable facts, thank you, not on speculations that require ignoring verifiable facts.

Shalom

Mark Steyn: It's breeding obvious, mate

2006-08-17T15:23:00.000-04:00

Mark Steyn's latest piece isn't optimistic, but it's very, very real. Here are just a couple of excerpts:

None of these pillars of what we used to regard as conventional society is quite as sturdy as it was, and most of them have collapsed. Many mainstream Protestant churches are, to one degree or another, post-Christian. If they no longer seem disposed to converting the unbelieving to Christ, they can at least convert them to the boggiest of soft-left political cliches. In this world, if Jesus were alive today he’d most likely be a gay Anglican vicar in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally-friendly car with an “Arms Are For Hugging” sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.

Yet, if the purpose of the modern church is to be a cutting-edge political pacesetter, it’s Islam that’s doing the better job. It’s easy to look at gold-toothed Punjabi yobs in northern England or Algerian pseudo-rappers in French suburbs and think, oh well, their Muslim identity is clearly pretty residual. But that’s to apply westernized notions of piety. Today the mosque is a meetinghouse, and throughout the west what it meets to discuss is, even when not explicitly jihadist, always political. The mosque or madrassah is not the place to go for spiritual contemplation so much as political motivation. The Muslim identity of those French rioters or English jailbirds may seem spiritually vestigial but it’s politically potent. So, even as a political project, the mainstream Protestant churches are a bust. Pre-modern Islam beats post-modern Christianity. . . .

But it’s important to remember: radical Islam is only the top-eighth of that iceberg – it’s an opportunist enemy taking advantage of a demographically declining and spiritually decayed west. The real issue is the seven-eighths below the surface – the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and call into question the future of much of the rest of the world. The key factors are: i) Demographic decline; ii) The unsustainability of the social democratic state; iii) Civilizational exhaustion.

None of these is Islam’s fault. They’re self-inflicted. If you doubt that, forget about fast Islamifying Europe and look at the most geriatric jurisdiction on the planet. In Japan, the rising sun has already passed into the next phase of its long sunset: net population loss. 2005 was the first year since records began in which the country had more deaths than births. Japan offers the chance to observe the demographic death spiral in its purest form. It’s a country with no immigration, no significant minorities and no desire for any: just the Japanese, aging and dwindling. . . .

The advantage Australians and Americans have is that most of the rest of the west is ahead of us: their canoes are already on the brink of the falls. But Australians who want their families to enjoy the blessings of life in a free society should understand that the life we’ve led since 1945 in the western world is very rare in human history. Our children are unlikely to enjoy anything so placid, and may well spend their adult years in an ugly and savage world in which ever more parts of the map fall prey to the reprimitivization that’s afflicted Liberia, Somalia and Bosnia.

If it’s difficult to focus on long-term trends because human life is itself short-term, think short-term: Huge changes are happening now. For states in demographic decline with ever more lavish social programs and ever less civilizational confidence, the question is a simple one: Can they get real? Can they grow up before they grow old? If not, then western civilization will go the way of all others that failed to meet a simple test: as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in 1870, “Nature has made up her mind that what cannot defend itself shall not be defended.”

On a spiritual note, I'll add that God has made up His mind that those who reject Him shall not be defended either--but those who trust in Him will have the Lord Himself as their shield.

Shalom.

Rockets hit Lebanon despite cease-fire

2006-08-15T18:25:00.000-04:00

I'm a huge fan of Opinion Journal. They caught this little bit of biased reporting against Israel on their Best of the Web Today column:

Stop Hitting Yourself!
"Rockets Hit Lebanon Despite Cease-Fire" reads an Associated Press headline from yesterday. Oh, those treacherous Zionists, blasting away at Lebanon despite the cease-fire! Well, actually, no. As the second paragraph of the story reports:
Hezbollah guerrillas fired at least 10 Katyusha rockets that landed in southern Lebanon early Tuesday, the Israeli army said, adding that nobody was injured. The army said that none of the rockets, which were fired over a two-hour period, had crossed the border and so it had not responded.
This casts the headline in a somewhat different light, no?

Immediately following was this little gem:

Why Not Let Israel Find Them?
"Bush: Hezbollah Lost"--headline, Middle East Online, Aug. 15

Shalom.

A Youth Exodus From Church -- What Are We Doing Wrong?

2006-08-15T11:56:00.000-04:00

This is a good and timely (or past-timely) article.

One thing I think the author misses is the necessity for good apologetics teaching. Being able to defend the faith, to articulate why one believes in Yeshua the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and to be able to demonstrate both to one's self and to others that he or she has not had to check their brains at the church door is more important now than ever: Why Johnny Can't Believe: On the Failure of the Church to Educate.

Part and parcel of this, of course, is educating our kids to know the Bible itself. I can't tell you how many times we reviewed the Parable of the Good Samaritan or the Sermon on the Mount in my youth group as a kid, but we received practically zero instruction on how the whole Bible fit together, what the covenants are and how they related to each other, how the Apostles interpreted the Tanakh (the OT) and its Messianic prophecies, how the Feastdays pointed to the Messiah, etc.

As a result, 2/3rds or more of my "graduating class" fell away from the faith and never came back.

Of course, how can the adults teach the children what they themselves don't know? When I went looking for a new church home some years ago, I found those who taught more than what Hebrews called the "foundation" from which we are to go on to completeness (6:1ff) were few and far between. Indeed, in most churches, you get dirty looks if you ask a question or suggest a subject of study that they don't consider "down to basics."

Frankly, the number of young people falling away should be a massive wake-up call to the adults: We need to give up the "just have faith" aphorisms, give up a little TV time, and study God's Word with the fervor of a person studying the love letters of their dearest, both for our own edification and for the good of our children.

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but just I wanted to rant and get some things off my chest. :-)

Shalom.

Multiple Fulfillments of Prophecy

2006-08-10T14:05:00.000-04:00

Back when I worked for Ravi Zacharias, I spent some time chatting with Paul Copan (yes, yes, forgive the name-dropping) and I asked him where he stood on eschatology. He told me, "You know, Michael, I think that when it's all said and done, we'll find out that all three major positions (i.e., preterism, historicism, and futurism) will have turned out to be correct."

Maybe he was just trying to avoid an argument, but his words struck me as profound. Since studying our Jewish roots, I've become even more convinced of his wisdom.

In the West, we think of time as linear and of prophecy as simple prediction-and-fulfillment. But in the Hebrew and other Ancient Near East cultures, they think of time as circular--not in an ultimate sense, as in Hinduism, but in the sense that things have a tendency to repeat--and of prophecy as the fulfillment of a pattern.

So then, let's consider a prophecy that there should be little debate on, 2 Sa. 7:12-16:

And when thy [David's] days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But My mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

So, does this prophecy refer to Solomon, or to the Messiah? The answer is both.

Solomon followed his father David, built a house for YHVH's Name, and God established his kingdom. When he committed idolatry, God punished him "with the rod of men"--specifically, the sword of Hadad the Edomite (1 Ki. 11:14) and Jeroboam the son of Nebat (v. 26). But God did not take Israel from him as He did Saul, but waited until Solomon had passed and his son had taken the throne, and even then He took away only the northern kingdom (vv. 11-13). And so David's line continued on the throne.

Yeshua also followed His father David. He is building a spiritual house for YHVH's Name in the Church (1 Pt. 2:5) and will also build a physical Temple for the Millennium (Ezk. 40-48). While He never committed iniquity Himself, He became sin for us so that by His stripes, administered by the rod of men, we could be healed. And though the Father's mercy departed from Him for a brief time as He hung on the Cross, it did not depart forever as it did from Saul, nor was the Kingdom taken from Him--on the contrary, by His eternal life, the throne of David is forever secure.

Examples abound: Isaiah prophecy of a child whose birth would be a sign of YHVH's fidelity to the house of David (Isa. 7:14ff) was fulfilled both in the near term by the prophet's own son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (ch. 8), but it also looked forward to the birth of the Messiah, who fulfilled the prophecy in even more literal detail (e.g., being born of a virgin, being called "God With Us") and went on to fulfill parts of the prophecy that Maher did not (chapters 9-12, which should not be removed from the stream of though begun in chapter 7).

Prophecy may even refer to past events which prefigure future ones. We are all familiar with prophetic types, as when Abraham "sacrificed" his son Isaac on Mt. Moriah, or Joseph was sold by his brothers as dead only to be made king over them. Or consider Matityahu's (Mathew's) use of Hos. 11:1 in Mat. 2:15. Consider the prophecy in context:

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

Was Matityahu wrong to quote this as a Messianic prophecy, as Jewish anti-missionaries claim? Or did he perhaps engage in a legitimate bit of "newspaper exegesis," seeing that the Messiah, just like Israel, had gone down into Egypt for safety in a time of trouble, only to come back out to the Land God had promised Abraham? In doing so, Matityahu shows us the connection between the Messiah and Israel, one that cannot be broken.

In fact, numerous of the Psalms which are quoted in the NT as Messianic prophecy were originally written by David to describe his own situation. In many cases, a highly poetic and allegorical description of David's situation, like Psalm 22, describes the betrayal and crucifixion of Yeshua in excruciating and literal detail.

Therefore, I actually agree with the preterist and historicist that the Olivet Discourse actually do prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I even leave open the possibility that the Apocalypse looked backward (being written over twenty years later) to the Temple's destruction even as it looked forward to the eschaton. I also agree with the historicist that the Revelation has within its scope the last 2000 years of Church history.

Where I disagree with both is that it ends there. Therefore, preterism and historicism are not so much wrong as they are incomplete. The chiefmost gripe I have with each is not in what they assert, but in what they deny: That YHVH has yet a place for "Israel of the flesh" in His plan, despite the evidence of our times and the testimony of Scripture; that He will keep all of His promises to the letter; and that there will indeed be a time of great testing for all of the children of Abraham, both the natural seed and those adopted into the Messiah, before Yeshua's bodily return to physically rule over the earth.

Shalom.

Revelation Was NOT Written Before 70 AD!

2006-08-09T21:57:00.000-04:00

This is one of those subjects that comes around every so often in my debates on FR, so I'm just going to post it here so that I can just make a link or copy-and-paste whenever it comes up again.

Early Church tradition overwhelmingly supports that Yochanan (John) was exiled to the quiet, lonely isle of Patmos during the reign of Domitian, which would put the writing of Revelation somewhere between 90 to 96 A.D. The earliest quote verifying the date of the writing of this book comes from Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of Yochanan the Emissary himself. In about 180 A.D., Irenaeus wrote:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. (Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 30.3)

Preterists, whose position requires that Revelation have been written before Jerusalem’s fall in 70 A.D. (for it undeniably claims to speak of events yet future as of its writing), will try to make the case that Irenaeus was actually referring to Yochanan being seen “towards the end of Domitian’s reign” rather than the “apocalyptic vision.” But how many of us would refer to a revered Apostle with the neuter pronoun “that”? The argument that the pronoun was changed in the Latin translation but was correctly preserved in the Greek quote preserved by Eusebius does not hold up, as we'll see in a moment.

Besides which, Irenaeus’ interpretations of Revelation are decidedly consistent with modern premillennialism. Bear in mind that he wrote Against Heresies primarily as an apologetic work. If Revelation were really so manifestly a prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction, wouldn’t the early Church fathers have recognized it and used it as a part of their witness? Yet history tells us that’s not what happened. Only centuries removed from the event was the “discovery” made of Revelation’s supposed intent to prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction.

Nor is Irenaeus the only person to comment on the time when this book was written. Eusebius quotes Irenaeus and goes on to cite others that were also exiled during Domitian’s reign in support of Irenaeus’ dating:

And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ. (Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 1; see also Book V, chapter 7).

If Eusebius understood the Apostle to have been exiled during Nero's reign, why exactly would he offer the exile of other Christians during Domitian's reign as proof that "they"--his sources, evidentially not limited to Irenaeus--"indeed, accurately indicated the time"? Is it not more likely that a scribal error, or even an original typo, crept into Eusebius' work than to assume that he himself misunderstood Irenaeus' statement so aggregiously? Moreover, the above testimony is sandwhiched between two other chapters describing Domitian's persecutions, which would be absurd if Eusebius understood Irenaeus to be referring to Yochanan being seen in Domitian's reign after an exile under Nero's.

If only these two fathers recorded Yochanan's exile to have taken place in the 90s, this would be enough to put the nails in preterism's coffin. But they were not alone: Victorinus wrote that “when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, chapter 10.11), in agreement with Jerome (Illustrious Men, chapter 9) and Hippolytus (On the Twelve Apostles). Nor can the case be made that when the early Church fathers spoke of Domitian in regards to the Apocalypse, they really meant to write ”Domitianou,” a title for Nero, as some have tried to claim. Eusebius speaks of both Nero and Domitian in his works, and never once refers to the former emperor by any name other than Nero. If every early Church father stated in no uncertain terms that the book was written in Domitian’s reign, why in the world would we try to date it decades earlier?

Simply arguing that Irenaeus is fallible is barely a fig leaf of a counter-argument, and amounts to begging the question: The only reason to assume that Irenaeus (and Hippolytus, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome) has the dating of the Revelation wrong is the presumption of preterism, which requires an early date.

Now, if there were any competing traditions from the second through fourth centuries, there might be some reason to doubt all of the above fathers. The closest thing one finds to such a competing tradition is found in the intro of the book in the Syriac version, which reads, "The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero.” However, to cite the Syriac version, you have to ignore the fact that in the original Syriac translation that is dated from the second century, the books of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not included. The others had been put back in by the fifth or sixth century, but there seems to be some doubt as to whether Revelation was included even then. Indeed, one source states that Revelation “did not appear in the Syriac Testament as late as 1562.” Even if we argue that that date is too late, the fact is that the Syriac version of Revelation’s title was written, at a minimum, four centuries after Yochanan recorded it and is contrary to every other manuscript of the book and the witness of at least five early Church fathers. How exactly is this a point in preterism’s favor?

The fact is that there is really no question about the dating of Revelation except among those who require a certain date in order to make their particular interpretations viable. In this regard, it should be noted that a futurist, premillennial interpretation of Revelation does not depend upon the 90 A.D. dating of the book, and in fact will work perfectly well even given an earlier authorship. That being the case, it should be up to those requiring the earlier date to prove their supposition with clear and decisive evidence.

Shalom

Is the Church an Enemy of the Gospel For Its Own Sake?

2006-08-09T01:15:00.000-04:00

"Paul says in Romans 9:6 that 'they are not all Israel, which are of Israel' and in 11:19 that 'The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.' Therefore, the cut-off branches, the Jews, have no more right to claim to be Israel, as that title has passed to the Church."

That's not an exact quote, but it sums up a typical Replacement argument. However, it misses Sha'ul's point entirely, as can be demonstrated by the closing arguments of this three chapter long section:

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, "There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
(Romans 11:25-29)

Now, if we are to assume that in Sha'ul's theology that "Israel" now means the Church, that would mean that the Church is partially blinded until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, and that the Church is an enemy of the Gospel because of itself. That makes no sense at all. Therefore, it must follow that by "Israel" here, Sha'ul is speaking of the same Israel of which the majority were blinded in vv. 8-10, the same Israel that he starts chapter 9 by describing:

For I could wish that myself were accursed from the Messiah for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Torah, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Messiah came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (vv. 3-5)

It is not we Gentile believers who are beloved of God because of the patriarchs--we are beloved solely because of our adoption in Yeshua--but Israel, who received the covenants that God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is Israel who received the Torah, the service of God, and the promises. Sha'ul starts chapters 9-11 by defining Israel in such a way that nobody could mistake him for meaning the Ekklesia, and he ends his argument the same way. How then can some read Romans and suppose that God has forever rejected "Israel according to the flesh"?

Some have tried to get around the conclusion that the natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have a special promise that YHVH will fulfill in the future by positing that "all Israel" means instead all of the Jews who join Yeshua's Ekklesia. However, this also fails to explain Sha'ul's final argument. The Apostle, after all, had already acknowledged that there was "at this present time . . . a remnant according to the election of grace" (11:5), and implies that God has always kept and will always keep a remnant of Israel who are faithful to Him despite the lack of faith of the majority (vv. 2-4). So then, if this remnant is the "all Israel" spoken of in v. 29, then Sha'ul, using the future tense, didn't know what he was talking about.

Moreover, we see in v. 12 that "if the fall of them [Israel] be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" In other words, though Israel's current blindness was necessary so that the Gospel could spread to the Gentiles, when "all Israel is saved" the "riches" that will come about will be even greater, even comparible to the Resurrection of the dead (v. 15)!

However, we are not to assume that "all Israel" means that every circumcised Jew is automatically saved--that would contradict Sha'ul's clear teaching of chapters 2-3. Rather, "all Israel" should be understood as "Israel as a whole." If I said, "When Yeshua returns, all America will be saved," we wouldn't suppose that to mean everyone born in America since her inception would be retroactively saved, but rather that the nation as a whole at the time of His Coming would be. Likewise Israel.

Sha'ul uses the imagery of an olive tree and her branches. Branches, in Biblical imagery, do not simply denote individuals, but family lines. Thus, the Messiah is repeatedly called the Branch which comes out of David; that is, David's descendant, many times removed. Now, many of these branches were cut off, pruned, because they refused to put their trust in Yeshua HaMashiach. In turn, branches brought from wild trees were grafted into the cultivated tree of Israel. They become part of the tree, nourished by its sap.

Because we are the graftees, Sha'ul warns, "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee" (v. 18). When the Church boasts against the Jews, we forget that it is not the Ekklesia to whom Israel must be grafted, it is we who must be grafted into Israel through her Messiah.

But those branches which are broken off have not simply been cast away.

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? (vv. 23-24)

This is not simply saying that individual Jews who become Christians can be saved. This is saying that the whole nation can in fact be regrafted back into their rightful promises--and in fact, Sha'ul goes on to say that this is not merely a possibility, but a promise!

The problem is not in the claim that the Ekklesia, both Jew and Gentile, belong to Israel. We do, just as the Galatians belonged to Rome. The problem is the claim that we are Israel, to the exclusion of the Jewish people, and that therefore the present Jewish nation by that name has no claim to it.

Next: A Rift in God's Kingdom

Shalom.

The True Jew

2006-08-07T14:10:00.000-04:00

"But," objects the Replacement Theologist, "doesn't Paul say, 'For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God'?" (Rom. 2:28-29).

Indeed he does, but you completely take this statement out of context if you think that he's therefore saying that a Gentile Christian is the "real Jew."

In the opening chapters of Romans, Sha'ul is establishing that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (3:23). He starts by demonstrating the sinfulness of the pagan Gentiles (1:18-2:8), then goes on to show that the Jews are also under God's judgment (2:17-3:23). Where the (pagan) Gentiles are condemned because though they have an innate knowledge of God and an innate knowledge of what they consider to be sin when it is committed against them but nevertheless worship the n0-gods and do not repent of what they know to be evil, the Jew is condemned by the Law of the Torah. Both are judged according to the light that God has given them, and both are found wanting.

In 2:17, Sha'ul begins, "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God . . ." This marks the transition: No longer is Sha'ul establishing the guilt of the Gentile; now he is addressing his own people, warning them that they have no reason to boast. Ergo, when he is addressing the issue of, "Who is a real Jew?" he's not even touching on the issue of the status of Gentile believers!

There is an old Jewish tradition that Abraham will let no circumcised Jew suffer condemnation to Ge'Hinnom (Gehenna, or Hell). Sha'ul here seems to be addressing that tradition. To the Jew that is depending on his circumcision, his Jewishness, and the fact that he knows the Torah to save him, Sha'ul writes, "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?" (2:21). In other words, do you practice what you preach? "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the Torah: but if thou be a breaker of the Torah, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision" (v. 25). In other words, if you go about breaking the Torah, you might as well be a pagan Gentile.

It may be thought that by "circumcision of the heart," Sha'ul is saying that only Christians--or at least only Christian Jews--are real Jews, since the heart is circumcised by the Spirit (v. 29, Col. 2:11). However, this presupposes that circumcision of the heart is a New Covenant concept connected to the giving of the Spirit at Shavuot (Pentecost). Not so--in fact, there are repeated commands in the Tanakh for Israel to circumcise their hearts (Deu. 10:16 & 30:6 and Jer. 4:4). The idiom therefore does not refer to being "born-again in the Spirit" per se--it means to internalize the external rite. A true Jew is not just one who was born to Jewish parents and circumcised on the eighth day, or who just goes through the motions for the sake of appearances. A true Jew is one who lives his Jewishness, keeping God's mitzvot (commandments) and making them a part of himself, doing so not for the praise of men, but for the praise of God. (Sha'ul is employing a pun here, as Y'hudah means "Yah's Praise.")

Therefore, I don't think that Sha'ul was addressing the issue of faith in the Messiah at all, at least not at this point in his letter. Rather, he seems to be addressing the Hellenized Jew, the one assimilated in all but name. He may even be addressing the synagogue-going Jew who just shows up for the sake of community appearances, the praise of men. But he is not, in my mind, addressing the God-fearing, Torah-keeping (albeit imperfectly) Jew who had not yet come to a conclusion about whether the Messiah had truly come.

On the other hand, he certainly was saying that the truest expression of Jewishness was to put one's trust in the Messiah of Israel! He was also issuing a challenge to his brothers of blood to look at those Gentiles who "have not the Torah . . . [but] shew the work of the Torah written in their hearts . . ." (Rom. 2:14, 15). The reference to the Torah being written on their hearts is a clear reference to the fact that these Gentiles were partakers of the New Covenant in the Messiah (cf. Jer. 31:33). He was challenging his people to observe the Gentile believers and see that they did indeed keep the Torah better than many Jews even without formal instruction as evidence of the work of God's Spirit. (Remember that the Jews had been expelled from Rome for a time, leaving the Gentile believers without those from whom they would normally learn the Scriptures from; Acts 18:2.) Where under the Mosaic covenant, men were to carry out the external actions and internalize them, under the New Covenant YHVH puts His Spirit in us to convert us internally first, and then this internal conversion comes out in our actions.

Does this mean, as some claim, that the external rites like Passover, tzitzit, etc. have no value? Hardly. Do we claim that because we have received Yeshua in the Spirit that the Lord's Supper and baptism have no more meaning? "But those aren't rituals, they're sacraments!" Potayto, potahto. A sacrament is just "[a] rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace" (Dictionary.com), and the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that the rituals of the Torah were "the sacraments of the Mosaic Law." Trying to avoid the fact that even those who most strenuously object to any form of the "ceremonial law" still believe that rituals have their place in the New Covenant by playing word games is a losing proposition. (See Why the New Covenant Doesn't Do Away With the Torah for more on this subject.)

So then, what does this mean for us today?

First, it means that we Gentile Christians can no longer use Romans 2-3 to support Replacement Theology, since Sha'ul is addressing the subject of what makes a Jew, not whether a Gentile should be considered a "true" Jew.

Secondly, we Gentile Messianics should stop fixating on trying to prove that we're "really" Jewish, by bloodline or otherwise. Instead, we should concentrate on showing the evidence of the Spirit in our lives by keeping Torah in such a way that a Sha'ul could point to us for an example. That most especially means loving our Jewish neighbors, whether or not they accept us.

Next: Is the Church an Enemy of the Gospel For its Own Sake?

Shalom

The Ekklesia and Israel

2006-08-07T13:06:00.000-04:00

Recently, I've been shocked by the level of anti-Semitic rhetoric that arose on a Christian thread on FR (since pulled by the mods). One poster, whom I have considered in the past and would like to continue to consider a close friend, went so far as to call the Jews "God-hating" and to say that it was illegal to consider the present-day nation of Israel and Jewish people to be "true" Israel, as that title had supposedly been claimed by the Church.

Just a few days later, during our Beit Midrash ("House of Study," i.e., a Bible study), a dear friend in the congregation got upset when I re-stated my belief that simply following Yeshua HaMashiach and keeping Torah did not by default make those of us born to a Gentile heritage (most definitely including myself) Jews.

Let me deal with both of these errors.

First, it is significant that nowhere in the New Testament, the B'rit Chadasha, does any Apostle call the Gentile believers and members of the Ekklesia, the Church, Jews. There are numerous passages where the Ekklesia as a whole is described in the terms that God used originally of Israel (cf. 1 Pt. 2:9 and Exo. 19:6), and certainly it is the centerpiece of Sha'ul's (Paul's) teaching that Jew and Gentile had been made into one Body, one Congregation, with no division between them, by the blood and Spirit of the Messiah. Many quote the following passage:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Messiah Yeshua.
(Galatians 3:28)

Amen! However, many miss the real point of this passage, claiming that this means that Jewish believers should no longer be distinctly Jewish. Oh really? So, men and women should not longer recognize the differences in the sexes? Homosexuality is now okay, since there is neither male nor female? Of course not! So clearly we recognize distinctions between each of the above groups--Sha'ul's point is that all who are in the Messiah, regardless of the circumstances of their birth or economic status, are equally God's children by virtue of their faith. Elsewhere, he writes,

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(Romans 3:1-2)

What does he mean by that? I think he means that the Jews were the original recipients of the sacred Scriptures in their own language, idioms, and culture, and therefore have a natural advantage in understanding them. Certainly, we in the Messianic movement have found that when we read the NT with "Jewish eyes," as it were, we find troublesome passages opening up to us. Certainly, a Gentile can learn to do so as well, but we have to make a cultural transition.

But even acknowledging this distinction and advantage, Sha'ul continually championed the rights of Gentile believers to full inclusion into the community without becoming circumcised--that is, formally giving up their Gentile nationality and heritage and becoming fully Jewish. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" (1 Co. 7:19), he writes. That is, Jewishness is nothing and Gentileness is nothing--it's whether a person keeps the commandments of God that counts.

This is where I grow frustrated with many Messianics. Messianic Jews--that is, those born and raised Jewish--sometimes look at those of us who are Gentile as outsiders. Now, I understand that many Messianic Jewish synagogues exclude Gentiles to create an atmosphere where non-believing Jews can feel at home. I think that they are wrong to return to the error of the first century which the Apostles struggled to overcome, but I understand their reasoning. By the same token, if Rav Sha'ul writes that keeping the commandments of God is for Jew and Gentile alike, by what reasoning do Jewish believers exclude Gentile believers from Torah-observant congregations? "You have thousands upon thousands of Sunday churches," they say. "Let us have our few synagogues." Sure, but what if I am convicted that I should keep the command of God to observe Shabbat? Should I be excluded from doing so for the sake of putting back up the middle wall of partition between us?

Others of my Messianic brethren, often reacting to the above, become obsessed with proving that they really are Jewish. They delve into genealogies, trying to find some trace of Jewish blood. "I must be Jewish," they say. "Why else would I be drawn to worship in a Jewish manner and keep the Torah?"

Gee, I dunno. Maybe because you are immersed into a Jewish Messiah and grafted into the root of Israel?

I make no pretensions to being Jewish. I was born to Gentile parents. As far as I can tell, neither side of the family has any significant Jewish blood. But I will still keep Torah, because I am saved, and I want to be like my (Jewish) Savior in every way. And if the Apostles were willing to undergo persecution for the sake of the Gentiles, and called them Gentiles without insult, who am I to deny my Gentile heritage?

I am a man of two heritages. I am an American, a descendant of John and Priscilla Alden, who came over on the Mayflower so that they could worship God according to their understanding of the Scriptures. My ancestors based Thanksgiving on Sukkot. They fought a war of independence against Britain. I come from a long line of teachers. But I am also grafted into Israel. Their history is my history, their King my King, their God my God. And though they do not yet see me the same way, I regard all Jews as my brothers and sisters by my adoption by the Messiah of Israel.

And therefore I will defend their honor and persons against all attackers as if that were my own--even when, especially when those attacking them do so from under the Christian banner.

In my next article, I'll deal with some of the objections raised by those who want to claim that the Church is not "the true Israel." Until then,

Shalom.

Next: The True Jew

The Trouble with Postmill

2006-07-31T22:05:00.000-04:00

So far, I've not said much about my prophetic interpretations on this blog, in part because of my impending debate with Don Preston--I didn't want to be perceived as having the debate before the debate. However, since he's actually requested that I post some of my understanding of eschatology on my blog, I'm happy to do so.

Just because it came up on an FR thread, I figure that I'll start by expounding on the major error of postmillennialism.

Postmill has been described as an "optimistic amillennialism." It agrees with the basic premise of amill that we are currently within the millennium, which is not to be understood as a literal 1000 year period of time, and is usually preterist--that is, believes that the Olivet Discourse, the Revelation, and the related prophecies all had their sole and final fulfillments in the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. I'll come back at a later date and explain why preterists aren't entirely wrong--they're just incomplete in their understanding.

For today, I'd like to touch on the "optimism" of postmill. One of the frequent arguments that postmill's adherants will throw at us premill types is that we deny the power of God to redeem the world, since we believe in the final victory of evil over good before Yeshua returns to set things right. For example, one poster on FR complained, "Premillennial eschatology tells us that those believers won't accomplish jack in the way of impacting, let alone redeeming, the culture around them."

Actually, it's history that tells us that, not eschatology.

There has never been such a thing as a permanently redeemed culture. Whenever Christianity (and Israel before it) has had one of those truly great and Godly generations, it has been because they came out of a period of darkness and testing which purified them, as fire purifies gold.

Because that generation walks with the Lord, the Lord blesses them, resulting in great material wealth. However, as the first generation that went through the time of testing passes, they are succeeded by a generation to whom church is just something you do . . . just because. They become Laodicean.

Then follows the cynical and rebelleous generation, to whom, "Don't ask questions, just have faith," the mantra of the "just because" generation, is sheer foolishness. The culture changes from Christian to post-Christian, and then to anti-Christian. In doing so, it looses its blessings. It also becomes decadent and dependant--which leads it back into darkness and bondage.

John Adams understood this cycle. He said, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other." We're finding that to be true in our own generation.

This is a cycle which no democracy has ever managed to escape. What, then, about a monarchy or dictatorship? The problem they run into is the need to enforce "Christian" standards by increasingly draconian laws. Conscienceless men can be ruled by fear, and in some cultures by honor and shame, but they cannot be ruled with a light hand. Bondage is still bondage, even if the mortal king proclaims himself a Christian.

These periods of darkness and bondage are actually important to the overall spiritual health of the Church. Indeed, I believe that Christian political rulership does not so much "redeem" as it does create more tares among the wheat. When the Church is in political power, those who are attracted to political power rather than the Messiah are attracted to the Church. Only when it is unpopular to be a Christian, when we are persecuted and downtrodden, when there is a real cost to be counted for living a holy life set apart for Yeshua do the tares flee the sanctuary and the wheat grow to fruition. And only when the Church is full of wheat bearing the fruits of repentence do we have the impact on our culture for the bondage to be broken and the cycle to begin anew.

There's an old story, probably apocryphal, which illustrates this point: Back in the Soviet days, a small home church in Russia was suddenly invaded by gun-wielding men. "We are the KGB," they said. "Anyone who doesn't want to die for their faith, get out now!" Maybe 2/3rds of those there sheepishly duck out. After they're gone, the KGB men sit and say, "Now that we know who the real Christians are, we want to learn about God."

I believe that the End Times scenario of persecution is not truly a victory for the Adversary, however much carnal eyes might see it to be so; rather, it is the last purification of the whole Body of the Messiah, the separation and bundling up of the tares from the wheat, "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Yeshua HaMashiach" (1 Pt. 1:7).

The flaw with postmill is that it refuses to acknowledge this cycle, a cycle which has been and will be in motion for as long as flawed human governments rule the world system. Premill supposes that somehow, we can create a visible Kingdom of Heaven on the earth--and if that's not working, if we find ourselves on the downslide part of the cycle, well that must be because of those darn Dispensationalists with their defeatist attitudes! Premill, in contrast, recognizes the cycle of history, and it recognizes that only when the Messiah King Yeshua sits on David's throne in Jerusalem and rules bodily over the whole earth "with a rod of iron" will that cycle be broken--and even then, there will be one last grating turn of the rusty wheel at the end of the Millennium before all is made new.

Premill is not defeatist because it recognizes the truth of history, or because it recognizes the truth of Scripture, that the whole world will go into a brief period of bondage brought on by spiritual darkness before the Lord Comes. It is simply realistic and Biblical.

There will be true shalom only when the Shar Shalom, the Prince of Peace, sits on David's throne.

Shalom.

When God Closes a Door

2006-07-17T11:25:00.000-04:00

Yeah, yeah, He opens a window. We all know the saying. The problem is that it makes God's actions sound amazingly trite and arbitrary, doesn't it?

Right now, Beth HaMashiach is facing a closed door. For the last couple of years, we've rented space from Eastgate Fellowship, who extended the right hand of fellowship to us. Unfortunately, Eastgate has disbanded following the loss of several prominent members and the retirement of her pastor, and is selling the property. We had hoped that the new congregation, whoever they were, would be amenable to us continuing to rent. Without going into details, they are not.

Sometimes its hard not to be angry or bitter. On an intellectual level, you know that you're just renting, but you still start to feel like a place is your home, and it feels like someone is trying to steal it from you.

But God is gracious. Attempts to find another church to rent from fell through, but we've found a storefront for rent just up the road from where we were. The location is prominent, visible from a major highway. The square footage of the storefront is just about perfect for our needs. It's a chance to have our own space to set up the way we want it--the teens are already drooling over the chance to decorate their room just the way they want it (within reason, of course). We can make this a true Messianic synagogue--we've even got the sanctuary oriented towards Jerusalem. Not renting from a Sunday church both opens up the possiblity of having more services and also removes a barrier to our Jewish brothers and sisters in checking us out, since many are wary of entering a church.

There are, of course, a lot of expenses involved, but our Father is providing the funds, as He has promised: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things (your needs) will be added unto you . . ." There are going to be sacrifices in both time and money for everyone, but since when has anything worthwhile not required sacrifice?

When David found himself on the run from Saul, he was devastated--just read a few of the Psalms he wrote. His life seemed to be over. He was even reduced to acting like a madman so that the Philistines wouldn't kill him. But because he was on the run, and because the only skill he had to sell was his skill with the sword, he learned the art of war. When soldiers who were unwilling to live any longer under Saul's rule came to him with their families, he learned to lead a people. Had he not been forced from his comfortable life as a shepherd, or from his equally comfortable position as the court harpist, he would never have learned the skills he needed to be the king that Israel needed him to be.

Or take Daniel. He was kidnapped from Jerusalem as a teen or young man, made a eunich in the service of Babylon (which, by the way, precluded him ever being able to worship in the Temple again), and forced to learn the pagan rites of his new masters. But if he had not been, then he would not have risen to his high position in Babylon and the Medo-Persian empires so as to be able to see to the needs of his people, and its quite likely that Cyrus would not have let the Jews go at their appointed time (Josephus records that it was Daniel who presented Cyrus with the scroll of Isaiah which contained the command from God to let His people return to Jerusalem).

Yeshua Himself knew about closed doors. He moved to Galilee after He was rejected by His hometown of Nazareth. Ultimately, the rejection by His people opened the way for Him to be made a sacrifice on their behalf. That same closed door opened the way for the Gospel to go to the Gentiles.

It's hard to face a closed door, especially when God doesn't immediately show us the open one. Sometimes we simply have to wait and trust in His promises--and it is in those hours of exile that we learn the most about true faith.

Shalom.

Escalations

2006-07-13T22:16:00.000-04:00

This blog normally isn't devoted to politics, but the situation in Israel is such that it needs to be commented on.

A quick summary from JWR (an an excellent analysis of the larger conflict ahead):

The next Middle East war — Israel against genocidal Islamism — has begun. The first stage of the war started two weeks ago, with the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim; now, with Hezbollah's latest attack, the war has spread to southern Lebanon. Ultimately, though, Israel's antagonists won't be Hamas and Hezbollah but their patrons, Iran and Syria. The war will go on for months, perhaps several years. There may be lulls in the fighting, perhaps even temporary agreements and prisoner exchanges. But those periods of calm will be mere respites.

Other good analyses can be found here and here. The latter page points out the real reason Iran is jumping into the fray:

For the last few weeks, Iran has been constantly delaying its response to the ultimatum presented to it by 5+1 (the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany) regarding its nuclear program, since it has no intention of accepting the international community's terms and of suspending its uranium enrichment activities. Iran was required to respond to the ultimatum by July 12 (before the G8 summit in Saint Petersburg). As of July 13, 2006, since Iran failed to respond, the international community has decided to refer the Iranian case back to the U.N. Security Council. So far, the international community has not yielded to Iran's attempts to evade the ultimatum, and has denied Iran's request to postpone the deadline to August 22, 2006. . .

It is possible that the escalation on Israel's borders, set off by elements supported by Iran - Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria - is meant to take the pressure off Iran by triggering a major military clash in the Middle East, which will divert international attention from Iran's nuclear program.

Iran's involvement would seem to explain why Saudi Arabia has issued a rather tepid response in which it surprisingly seems to blame the "uncalculated adventures" of Israel's enemies.

Most of the analyses of the situation are regarding this escalation of conflict as more than just business as usual in the Middle-east; which is to say, this is not just another brief spat which will wear itself down to another cease-fire in a few days. We'll have to wait and see.

But even if this does break out into a larger war in the Middle-east, we should be neither surprised nor dismayed. Our Father told us right up front that Israel would be the center of the world's conflicts:

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. (Zec. 12:2-3)

One thing I would caution my prophetically-minded brethren is against calling this conflict a fulfillment of prophecy or a sign that we are in the End Times. Certainly we are, and we are nearer to the Lord's return than we were in 1948, 1967, and 1973, but none of those conflicts brought us into Daniel's Seventieth Week, so it's premature to say that this one will.

Instead, we need to watch eagerly for Yeshua's Second Coming, but occupy until He comes. Speculation is fine and fun, but we've got too much to do in too short a time to let it distract us.

Shalom, and pray for the shalom of Jerusalem.

The National Council of (Apostate) Churches Has Lost Their Collective Mind

2006-07-13T18:23:00.000-04:00

I saw this one yesterday and forgot to post it:

National Council of Churches Pres.: Jesus Never said Anything About Homosexuality or Abortion

By Gudrun Schultz

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Forget about traditional morality—Christianity should focus on eradicating poverty, protecting the environment and ending the war in Iraq, according to the general secretary of the National Council of Churches, Dr. Bob Edgar.

“Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion,” said Dr. Edgar to CBS News at a recent gathering of liberal Christian leaders in Washington. . .

Pardon me, I need to go find a place to scream in incoherant rage for a few minutes.

Ah, that's better.

You know, my brothers and sisters in the Lord and I can (and quite often do) disagree honestly on questions of how certain aspects of Torah-observance carry over into New Covenant practice--not to mention on questions of eschatology, ecclesiology, predestination vs. freewill, covenental relationships, etc.--but we all agree on the Bible as God's written Word, in which is full expressed God's will, just as Yeshua, the Living Word, is He in whom "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

What's truly frightening is how many are either so ignorant or so corrupt and willfully blind that they can't figure out what Yeshua's teachings on homosexuality and abortion are. To wit:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. --Mat. 5:18
(Well, that pretty much covers whether the commandments on sexual deviancy and sacrificing children to Molech [or Convenience] still stand.)

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. --vv. 27-28
(So is someone going to try to claim that one's not allowed to lust after the opposite sex, but lusting after one's own sex is perfectly okay? "So let homosexuals marry," someone might argue. Ah, but there's a problem with that . . . )

And He answered and said unto them, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?'" --Mat. 19:4-5
(What, you mean that Yeshua defined marriage to exclude men marrying men or women marrying women? How politically incorrect!)

And on the subject of abortion, one could point out that the Master upheld (and even expanded) the commandment against murder, that He forbade anyone from prohibiting the children from being brought to Him, and pronounced a curse against any who would cause "a little one" to stumble (fall into sin; Mat. 18), let alone scrape them out of the womb like a cancer! One could also point out that He agreed with the presumption of the Sadducees that it was one's moral duty to bring children into the world (Mat. 22:24).

The icing on the cake was this little gem from the article:

The gathering was the latest effort by the “religious left” to gain back some of the political power the group enjoyed during the 60’s and early 70’s.

Good luck, pal. Haven't you noticed yet that you're hemmorhaging membership? As Dave Shiflett, quoted in Christianpost.com, notes:

Americans are vacating progressive pews and flocking to churches that offer more traditional versions of Christianity . . . Most people go to church to get something they cannot get elsewhere. This consuming public—people who already believe, or who are attempting to believe, who want their children to believe—go to church to learn about the mysterious Truth on which the Christian religion is built. They want the Good News, not the minister's political views or intellectual coaching. The latter creates sprawling vacancies in the pews. Indeed, those empty pews can be considered the earthly reward for abandoning heaven, traditionally understood.

Sometimes, I almost have hope for American Christianity.

Shalom.

The Gospel According to the Inner Circle, Pt. 2: The Light of God

2006-07-13T01:10:00.000-04:00

Yochanan uses another term in his first chapter to describe Yeshua: He calls Him “the Light,” and says that He “lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (v. 9). The same phrase is used throughout the Talmud and Rabbinical literature to mean literally “every single person.” For example, in the rhetorical question, “Doth not the sun rise upon all that come into the world?” But if Yeshua truly lights every single person on earth, why then do so many reject Him?

The answer is not in the insufficiency of His Light, but the wickedness in the heart of Man. Fast-forward to John 3:19-21 for a moment:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Have you ever noticed that you can present Yeshua with the greatest of humility and love, and many people will still get angry, cut off conversation, stalk off, or even call names. (“Intolerant” is the catchphrase of choice of the political left.) Of course, sometimes we goof and come across as judgmental know-it-alls, so we have to continually recheck ourselves in the Light of God’s Word (Psa. 119:105)—but even when that’s not the case, even when we do everything right and in the Spirit, anger and rejection is often the result of our witness. Not because we necessarily did anything wrong, but because they are fleeing God’s Light.

I have a good friend who is a staunch agnostic (and doesn’t that seem like a contradiction in terms?). He’s very intelligent, and one of the most generous people I know. He’s been supportive and even spent a couple of years in a Bible study I was doing, but he’s been very careful to avoid coming to any conclusions that might cause him to have to change his life.

One day, out of the blue (and I mean literally out of the blue—there was absolutely no lead-up to this), he snapped at me, “And if you tell me that I’m going to hell, then that’s the end of our friendship! It’s over!”

“Have I ever said that to you?” I asked. “Have you ever known me to take that approach?” He admitted that I had not. “So where did that come from?” I asked. He didn’t have an answer. I believe that the source of his outburst was ultimately spiritual, not emotional or intellectual—that is to say, the Spirit was convicting him of sin, and righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8), and he was reacting to that, not to anything I’d said to him. He was running from the Light, from Yeshua HaMashiach.

I pray that someday he stops running, and finds the true rest for his soul.

Yeshua is God’s Word, both the perfect expression of His Being and the means by which He created and interacts with His universe, and this Word is both with God and is God from eternity. He is also God’s Light, showing the true hearts of men, whether they love righteousness or evil. And He is our Savior, our Priest, our Prophet, and our King forevermore.

Amen, and Shalom.

The Gospel According to the Inner Circle: TOC

2006-07-01T06:01:00.000-04:00

No, not some Gnostic secret. In this series, we'll look at the life of Yeshua through the lense of the two Apostles closest to Him: Yochanan, the Beloved Apostle, and Kefa, as recorded by Mark. Based on my lecture notes for both my prison ministry and Beth HaMashiach's youth group (yes, I really do hit the advanced stuff with the kids).

Chronology
John 1:1 - The Word of God
John 1:9 - The Light of God

Selected Bibliography

2006-07-01T05:54:00.000-04:00

Since I intend to cite my sources a lot more often when writing these articles, a permanent place to post them so that I only need to cite the author's name (or perhaps a keyword if I use more than one book by the same author) seems appropriate. I won't try to cite all my sources at once, but will add to this entry as time goes on:

Books

Lightfoot, John, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, in four volumes (Hendrickson, 2003, 4^th printing)

Websites
Tektonics.org

The Gospel According to the Inner Circle, Pt. 1: The Word of God

2006-07-01T04:31:00.000-04:00

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
--John 1:1

Thus begins the fourth Gospel account, harkening our attention back to Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The first word of Genesis, which provides the Hebrew title of the book, is B'reshit, "In the beginning." The same word would have been used by Yochanan to start his Gospel account in Hebrew. (Yes, it was written in Greek--but the Apostle would have thought in Hebrew, so let's endeavor to follow his thoughts.) If he had followed Hebrew conventions in naming a book or chapter for the first significant word to appear in it, he probably would have named this book B'reshit Beit, Genesis II, the book of second beginnings.

The word logos is used in the Septuatgint (the LXX hereafter) to translate the Hebrew word, d'var. The d'var is more than just the sound the lips make. Words, in Hebrew thought, both have power and are the full expression of a person's being, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Mat. 12:34). Therefore, Yeshua, the D'var of God, is far more than just a messenger or a created being; He is the one "in [Whom] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

Moreover, in Hebrew thought, words are not only a part of a person's inmost being being displayed before men, but words have power. As one reads the Tanakh, one is struck by the very real power of both blessings and curses. How much more then does God's Word have power? "So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isa. 55:11). Since d'var in Hebrew is a male noun, the above verse could also be rendered thusly:

So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: He shall not return unto Me void, but He shall accomplish that which I please, and He shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent Him.

God's Word is His "action part," the means by which He interacts with His creation, just as our bodies enable us to interact with it. When God created the universe, how did He accomplish it? By His Word: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Gen. 1:3). Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis we read, "And God said . . ." Where Genesis 1:1 affirms, "God created the heaven and the earth," the Second Genesis says of the Word of God, "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).

This was not Yochanan's only source of inspiration. In the Targums, the translation of the Torah into Aramaic which were widely used in Yeshua's time (and which Yochanan, a native of Galilee, would have most likely been very familiar with), the equivalent word is memra. Lightfoot (3.238) points out that the expression, "The memra of the Lord" is found quite often in the Targums. For example, Exo. 19:17 reads, "And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with the memra of God . . ." (Also found in Job 42:9, Psa. 2:4 and 106:12, and Gen. 24:3 and 39:2.) He cautions that memra can also mean "I, Thou, He, and is frequently applied to men too." However, that doesn't prevent Yochanan from making a very rabbinical midrash from the use of memra to come to the conclusion that it was, for example, the preincarnate Yeshua whom Moshe brought Israel out to meet.

Moreover, as J.P. Holding points out, within Judaism there was an entire body of "wisdom literature," which presents God's Word, His Wisdom, in the terms that the Apostles used to describe the Messiah.

The prologue to John's gospel makes a precise identification of Christ with Wisdom, describing the Logos' Christological role (1:3), its role as the ground of human knowledge (1:9) and as the mediator of special revelation (1:14) -- the three roles of the pre-existent Logos/Wisdom. In calling Jesus God's Logos, John was affirming Jesus' eternality and ontological oneness with the Father by connecting him with the Wisdom tradition.

He adds (earlier in the same article):

"Judaism understood God's Word to have almost autonomous powers and substance once spoken; to be, in fact, 'a concrete reality, a veritable cause.'" (Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity , 145.) But a word did not need to be uttered or written to be alive. A word was defined as "an articulate unit of thought, capable of intelligible utterance." (C. H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 263. It cannot therefore be argued that Christ attained existence as the Word only "after" he was "uttered" by God. Some of the second-century church apologists followed a similar line of thinking, supposing that Christ the Word was unrealized potential within the mind of the Father prior to Creation.) This agrees with Christ's identity as God's living Word, and points to Christ's functional subordination (just as our words and speech are subordinate to ourselves) and his ontological equality (just as our words represent our authority and our essential nature) with the Father. A subordination in roles is within acceptable Biblical and creedal parameters, but a subordination in position or essence (the "ontological" aspect) is a heretical view called subordinationism.

Gavri'el, Beth HaMashiach's head minister, has often used a similar expression in modeling the Trinity: The Father is God's Will, Yeshua is His Word, and the Ruach is the "Breath" which carries the Word forth. (See the "Fundamentals of Messianic Beliefs" series here.)

That Yeshua, the Word of God, was not only with God, but was God from the very beginning is not some New Testament contrivance. Rather, Yochanan's understanding of His diety was founded on numerous passages of the Tanakh like the following:

Isa. 7:14 - If Yeshua is not truly, "God With Us," in what sense was He ever called "Imanu'el"?

Isa. 9:6 - The Messiah is not only called "the Mighty God" (El Gibowr), but even "the Everlasting Father."

Mic. 5:2 - The Messiah's goings-forth are from "the days of eternity" (m'yomi olam), and it is God who "inhabits eternity" (Isa. 57:15).

Zec. 12:10 - Who destroys the nations in v. 9? God. Who pours out the Spirit in v. 10? God again. Who then is the one of whom it is said, "And they shall look on Me, whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son . . ." Unless there is a sudden change in the speaker (which is up to the skeptic to prove), it can only be God Himself who is pierced.

If one wants to know God, one has only to look to His Word, His Son, His Annointed One.

Shalom

Upcoming Stuff

2006-07-01T04:14:00.000-04:00

I've got some stuff on the burner for this blog; I'm just not ready to post it yet (I'm trying to get in the habit of completing multi-part articles before I start posting them). In the meantime, a quick teaser:

First, I'm working on a series explaining some of the key ways in which first-century Jewish (and to a certain extent, Greek) culture is different from ours today. This one is taking more time than I originally anticipated because I'm trying to source everything.

Secondly, I'm doing a series of studies on the Gospel according to Yochanan and Kefa. What, you say? There is no Gospel of Peter? Partly true; however, the Gospel account of Mark was written from Kefa's sermons (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1), so we can regard it as being, in effect, Kefa's Gospel account, ghost-written by Mark.

So why these two Gospel accounts? Why not Matthew or Luke? While I intend to dip into the latter two accounts for additional details, I've chosen John and Mark for two reasons: First, because they were based on the accounts of those closest to the Messiah Yeshua, and secondly, because Yochanan evidentially intentionally wrote his account to suppliment Mark.

I hope to have the Gospel series started this weekend; I've got the notes--I just need to flesh them out and make them readible text.

Shalom

Don Preston Debate postponed

2006-06-15T18:06:00.000-04:00

This post may seem like a sequel to a movie that hasn't come out yet for many readers, but I also know that many of those who read this blog keep up with me through other avenues, and this is one of the best ways I know to keep everyone on the same page.

Some background for those not already in the know: A couple of months ago, a few weeks before Pesach, I was pinged to a thread on FR in which the opening article had been written by one Don Preston espousing a preterist view of Scripture. A number of Don's supporters, including Bill Fangio, who started the thread, signed onto FR for an impromptu debate. Unfortunately, the swarming of the forum for the express purpose of promoting Don's point-of-view did not meet with the approval of the mods, who erased the thread and banned the newcomers. However, before this happened, I had agreed on the thread to debate Don.

Confession time: At the time, I assumed that Bill meant for a written debate online similar to the one between Samuel Frost and Tim Warner here. When I realized that we were discussing a live, on-stage debate, I took the matter before the Lord in prayer as well as before Gavri'el, seeing as I would be representing Beth HaMashiach and Yeshua HaMashiach Ministries, before accepting. The date for the debate was originally given as late August.

Unfortunately for those looking forward to the debate (including me), scheduling conflicts both for the venue we wanted and for advertising and radio interviews leading up to the event arose which gave us a choice: To seriously scale-down the debate and risk lacking an audience, or to push it back until May of 2007. We agreed that we would rather delay gratification than to have the debate fizzle for lack of time and advertising.

The link to Don's website and announcement of the debate is here.

I'd like to go ahead and take the time to say that Don is a wonderful, affable, gentlemanly Christian with a love for the Word and an earnest desire to know God's will and obey it. The fact that I believe that he is off-track in his eschatology and ecclesiology (and he believes the same of me) does not alter this fact one iota.

I'll keep updating here as we know more, and as we get closer to the date and lock down some details, we'll hopefully be posting those details on the Beth HaMashiach website.

Shalom.

On the Need for Apologetics

2006-06-14T21:49:00.000-04:00

I came across this article indicting the Church for its failure to teach Christians why they should believe anything the bible teaches a while back, but kept putting off linking to it. It's well worth a read. Actually, the entire site is well worth the read; while I disagree with the author on some matters of eschatology and the place of Torah in the Church today, he has an enormous respect for and understanding of the original cultural and linguistic context from which the Bible came. I'll probably be posting links to him fairly regularly for a while.

Anyway, here's the article in a nutshell:

The only way to solve this is with a solid educational program, which is exactly what we lack in so many of our churches. It's time for fewer prefab sermons, with their rampant decontextualizations, and time for more demonstrations on textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, and so on. It's time to make such efforts a priority and not something we take after the damage is done and we need to play "catch up". It's time to be proactive instead of reactive. It's time to make these things something that is discussed from the pulpit on Sunday morning, not hidden away in Sunday night church training classes or Wednesday night Bible study. It's also time to make this part of our evangelism, and throw away or at least de-prioritize all the gimmicks like the "Evangecubes" (I can never get a full picture on all six sides anyway) and the poorly drawn Chick tracts.

Amen and shalom.

The Name of God, Pt. 3: Ineffable?

2006-06-14T20:18:00.000-04:00

When I was growing up, I was told that the Name of God is ineffable--that is, unpronounceable--due to being written without any vowels. Of course, what the person telling me this didn't say (and probably didn't know) was that much of written Hebrew lacks vowels. That is to say, the vowels are inferred by the reader. The result is much the same as the way some people today write English in shorthand; for example:

My name is Michael, and I live in Atlanta.

My nm s Mchl, nd I lv n 'Tlnth.

More difficult to read, certainly, but hardly unpronounceable--though there might arise a debate about whether "Mchl" should be pronounced Michael, Machil, Mochul, etc. One might also debate whether the "y" in "my" is meant as a vowel (as indeed it is) or a consonant, so that the first word of the sentence could be rendered my, may, mya, etc.

The Masorites added vowel-marks to the text of the Tanakh in order to provide guides for those less familiar with the Biblical text than a native-born Hebrew speaker who grew up hearing the text read aloud, for which we owe them a tremendous thank-you. (However, it should be noted that because the vowel-marks are a late addition, as indeed are the spaces between the letters, we have to be careful in how we lean upon them.)

In any case, this shows that the lack of vowels would not make it impossible to correctly pronounce a word. Moreover, many Hebrew letters can be either a consonant or a vowel, and this is the case with all of the letters of the Name YHVH.

yod = either a y or an i
heh = a small breath, just like the name of the letter
vav = either a v (consonant) or a u or o (vowel)

We can be certain that the popular English pronunciation Jehovah is not correct. First of all, the yod is never pronounced like an English j. Secondly, this pronunciation came about because of the custom of substituting Adonai (Master, or Lord) for YHVH when reading the text aloud--the Masoretic scribes inserted the vowel-marks for Adonai (a-o-e) into the letters of YHVH, which resulted in an amalgamation of the two (YaHoVeH). Thirdly, Yahoveh in Hebrew would be broken into Yah and hoveh; the latter word means "a ruin" and "disaster" (Strong's #1943)--in other words, it's like saying "Yah is a ruin and disaster"!

The two most likely and popular pronunciations are Yahweh and Yahveh, the main point of contention being whether the vav should be pronounced as a consonant and a vowel. Proponents of the former view lean on Josephus, who stated that the Name written on the High Priest's turban was comprised of "four vowels" (Wars. 5:5:7, ref. Exo. 28:36-37). The early Church fathers seem to have preferred this reading:

It was in connection with magic that the Tetragrammaton was introduced into the magic papyri and, in all probability, into the writings of the Church Fathers, these two sources containing the following forms, written in Greek letters: (1) "Iaoouee," "Iaoue," "Iabe,"; (2) "Iao," "Iaho," "Iae"; (3) "Aia"; (4) "Ia." It is evident that (1) represents , (2) , (3) , and (4) . The three forms quoted under (1) are merely three ways of writing the same word, though "Iabe" is designated as the Samaritan pronunciation. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Tetragrammaton)

The Samaritan pronunciation, mentioned above, favors the pronunciation as Yahveh, as a b-sound may be easily derived from an original v-sound. It has the advantage of having come from an area geographically and linguistically close to Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the bulk of the early testimony and scholarly study is on the side of Yahweh. I myself am not 100% sure, though I tend to use Yahveh right now, with the slightest of skips, not quite a breath, on the first heh, making it Yah'veh. (A good friend has told me that his uncle, who is a native Aramaic speaker, also pronounces the first heh, saying, "The heh is the breath of life; it should be pronounced!")

This study has, of course, been extremely brief. Those readers interested in a more in-depth study will find a longer article and a link to an e-book here. I don't agree with all of its conclusions, but the chapters dealing with the pronunciation of the Name were of immense interest and help to me.

A final caveat, which has already been said, but bears repeating: We have to walk a tightrope here. We want God's Name to be known and used in proper reverence, but we never want it to become common. Nor do we want it to be a stumbling block for anyone. For this reason, Beth HaMashiach uses the traditional circumlocution ADONAI in prayer and liturgy, and even omits the vowels from L-rd and G-d, lest a Jewish visitor think we are being too light with the Name.

But at the same time, let us remember to bless the Name of YHVH.

Shalom.

Feminized Christianity

2006-06-13T14:00:00.000-04:00

Sorry, I know I've been slacking on the material lately. I've been in the process of moving, and I'm only just starting to get my study area back into shape. I'll finish the series on the Name of God soon.

In the meantime, here's a link to an interesting article which makes this keen observation:

"Every Muslim man knows that he is locked in a great battle between good and evil, and although that was a prevalent teaching in Christianity until about 100 years ago, today it's primarily about having a relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally," Murrow said.

"And if that's the punch line of the Gospel, then you're going to have a lot more women than men taking you up on your offer because women are interested in a personal relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally. Men, generally, are not."

Gee, ya think?

Shalom

The Name of God, Pt. 2: The Reverence of God's Name

2006-05-25T22:35:00.000-04:00

If the Scriptures command us to "publish the name of YHVH," how then did the custom of avoiding it come about? It was not through some priestly conspiracy, as I've seen some suggest, but out of a deep sense of reverence.

First, let's step back from the speaking of God's Name to the writing of it. Why is it many observant Jews even refrain from writing "Lord" and "God," but render them "L-rd" and "G-d" instead? (I've even seen a few Messianics take this to an extreme, writing "M-ss--h" instead of Messiah.)

The answer is found in Deu. 12:2-4:

Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto YHVH your God.

To understand why a Jew will not write the Name, or even a title, of God, you have to look at this passage like a rabbi. Remember that the rabbis both seek to keep the most literal interpretation of a command possible as well as observe its drash. For example, when an Orthodox Jew wears teffilin (phylacteries) in prayer, it's to keep the command to wear God's Word on his hand and between his eyes literally (Deu. 6:8). Therefore, when they see a command to destroy the names of the pagan gods, but not to do the same to the Name of YHVH, the observant Jew likewise takes that command very literally. If you write YHVH--or indeed, any Name or title belonging to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--on a piece of paper, and then either erase the Name or allow the paper to be destroyed, to the Jew you are destroying the Name of God.

What then of speaking the Name of God? Forbidding this practice came out of two separate issues. The first is the command that he who blasphemes (slanders) the Name of YHVH must be put to death (Lev. 24:16). Again, think like a rabbi: The noblest pursuit in their minds is to put a fence around the Torah--that is, to erect commands beyond what the Torah commands so that one will not accidentally sin. For example, to create a specified "Sabbath's day journey" that one isn't supposed to walk beyond (about half a mile). If one were forced to walk just a little more than the prescribed journey, one wouldn't have sinned against the Sabbath by working. The same principle applies here: The simplest way to avoid accidentally blaspheming the Name is to avoid using it altogether.

The second issue is that the pagans in the first century (and the neo-pagans of today) used the names of their gods in magical rites, and the Jews didn't want them to use YHVH's Name the same way. This is why, for example, the book of Esther only contains the Name in four hidden acrostics, and then only in the original Hebrew: It was a safeguard against the Persians, among whom the book was published (likely in their own language) learning and misusing God's Name.

This resulted in an increasing sacredness in the use of the Name of YHVH. First, it was restricted from common use, with one substituting Adonai (Lord), Avinu (Our Father) and other circumlocutions instead. By about two centuries before Yeshua's birth, this practice had been enshrined in what some call the ineffable (Unspeakable) Name doctrine. The use of the Name became restricted to the priests, and then to the Cohen HaGadol (the High Priest), and then only on Yom Kippur. Edersheim notes that where once the practice was to say the Name aloud on Yom Kippur, when it became known that the Name was being used for magic, the Cohen HaGadol began muttering it under his breath, until the very pronunciation was lost from the common mind.

In my previous entry, I showed that the Bible does actually command us to make YHVH's Name known. This of course means more than just the syllables--it means His reputation, His honor, who He is--but it includes the syllables. But now I'm going to issue a caution: Yeshua and His Apostles were very careful about using YHVH's Name. Yeshua most commonly referred to Him as "My Father," and the NT uses Kurios (Lord) and Theos (God) rather than transliterating YHVH into Greek. Therefore, we too should exercise the greatest of caution in actually speaking God's Name, doing so only in worship, prayer, instruction, or another reverent context.

We want God's Name to be known, not for it to become common.

Shalom.

On to part 3.

The Name of God, Pt. 1: Can We Speak God's Name?

2006-05-10T13:54:00.000-04:00

This is a piece I've meant to do for a while, and it seems apropos to do it now as a follow-up to talking about the names we use for ourselves.

By now, readers may have noticed my tendency to use the KJV, but to usually replace "Jesus" with "Yeshua" and sometimes replace "the LORD" with "YHVH." The reason I prefer Yeshua to Jesus is very simple: First, it emphasizes His Jewishness. Second, "Yeshua" means "Salvation" in Hebrew, and the longer form, "Y'hoshua," means "Yah is Salvation." "Jesus" doesn't carry that meaning--or any meaning, for that matter--in any language, and I want to preserve the importance of the Messiah's Name. Thirdly, while there is nothing wrong, per se, with saying "Jesus"--God knows your heart, and He knows whose Name you're praying in--it's not a particularly good transliteration of our Master's Name either, having gone from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German before reaching it's English form.

What about the proper Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as He revealed it to Moshe, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh (hereafter rendered as YHVH)? Should it be used, and if so, how should it be pronounced?

The Jewish tradition is to never pronounce the Tetragramaton--or rather, that only the High Priest may say it, and only then on Yom Kippur. I'll go into the origin of that tradition another time. For now, suffice to say that when a person reading from the Tanakh came to the Name, he would substitute "ADONAI" (Heb. for "Lord"), which is where our own custom of writing "the LORD" in place of God's Name in our English translations comes from. Some translations of the Tanakh, recognizing the link between YHVH and God's declaration to Moshe, "I AM that I AM" ("Ehyeh asher Ehyeh"), use "the Eternal" instead.

Interestingly, over time ADONAI became too holy to be used in anything but direct reading from the Scripture, and HaShem (the Name) was substituted instead. One wonders what will have to be substituted when HaShem becomes too holy. My siddur (Jewish prayer book) uses a double-yod in place of God's Name rather than write YHVH, Adonai, or HaShem.

But is there any Biblical basis for eschewing the Name of God? None at all. YHVH appears 6519 times in the Tanakh--many of them direct quotes from human beings. For example, shortly after the fall, Havah (Eve) says upon the birth of her son Cain, "I have gotten a man from YHVH" (Gen. 4:1). Moshe continually told Israel, "This is what YHVH has commanded . . ." David used YHVH's Name reapeatedly in his Psalms, which were meant to be sung aloud.

No, clearly Scripture permits saying God's proper Name, YHVH, provided that we do so with reverence. It is something greatly to be lamented, then, that both the Jewish and Christian communities have eschewed using it almost to the point of destroying it from history altogether.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with saying "God" and "the Lord" (any more than there was anything wrong with the Apostles writing "Theos" and "Kurios" in the NT) out of a sense of reverence. (For that matter, while I do not join in the custom, I have no problem with those who omit the vowels of L-rd and G-d for the sake of reverence.) My concern is that those terms have become so generalized today that one can never tell if someone means "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" when they say "God," or if they mean Allah, the Brahman, a deist god, or what. Many Christians sidestep this potential confusion or inaccuracy by saying "Jesus," but that risks confusing the Trinity. I would that we knew for certain how to pronounce YHVH and would do so--with all reverence and awe--even if there were no other reason.

Moreover, I think Scripture encourages, if not commands us, to make God's Name known:

Deuteronomy 32:3-4
Because I will publish the name of YHVH: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

2 Samuel 22:50
Therefore I will give thanks unto thee, O YHVH, among the heathen, and I will sing praises unto thy name.

Psalm 34:3
O magnify YHVH with me, and let us exalt his name together.

Over the next few articles, I'm going to discuss how the practice of never saying YHVH came about, whether we know the pronounciation today, and how we should avoid misusig it. Until then,

Shalom.

On to part 2.

Mark Steyn on The DaVinci Code

2006-05-10T12:42:00.000-04:00

This one's going to be (seemingly) a bit off-topic for this blog, but given the upcoming DaVinci Code movie and Cameron's two-part sermon (available here), it seemed apropos. That, and I absolutely love Mark Steyn's work.

So, without further ado, let me present The DaVinci Code: Bad writing for Biblical illiterates.

And for those who like to Freep, here's the FR thread.

Shalom.

What's in a Name?

2006-05-08T16:24:00.000-04:00

I got (indirectly) an interesting question on FR today:

I don't understand the need for the term "Messianic Jews". If they are Christians, then they should be glad to be called by that name.

Mashiach, Messiah, and Christos, Christ, are simply two translations with the same meaning, which is "Annointed One." Mashiach is the original, since the promises of the Messiah came in Hebrew, not Greek. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to say Christ--the Apostles certainly didn't mind translating the word for their Greek audience--any more than it would be wrong to say "Jesus the Annointed" to an English audience for the sake of explaining the meaning of "Christ" and avoiding our tendency to think of it as a surname.

The reason that Messianic Jews choose to use "Messianic" instead of "Christian" is twofold: First, because they are not ashamed of their Jewishness, and wish to incorporate it into their worship and self-identification.

Second, because there are in fact distinctions between a Messianic perspective and a mainline Christian perspective. I can tell you for a fact that many Christian churches receive a Jewish believer into their ranks and immediately put the pressure on him to eat a ham sandwhich and celebrate Easter instead of Passover and put off all things Jewish as a rite of passage.

There's a reason why the Jewish community considers "Jewish Christian" to be an oxymoron. For more historical perspective on that reason, you might want to read this article.

By using the term "Messianic," a congregation emphasizes its Jewish character and its commitment that Jewish believers in a Jewish Messiah should be able to stay Jewish and keep the Torah that Yeshua did instead of being forced into Gentilism.

There's something of a debate right now as to whether those of a Gentile pedigree, like myself, should use the term "Messianic Jew," "Messianic Hebrew," or whathaveyou. (Sadly, many congregations, fearful of losing their Jewish character, exclude Gentile believers in clear contradiction to Scripture. I suppose that's one way to avoid having to deal with the terminology issue.) I personally just call myself a "Messianic" to avoid being seen as making a claim to something I'm not.

I've taken to preferring saying "Yeshua" to "Jesus" not because of any sacred-name nonsense (the idea that if you are saved in the name of Jesus instead of Yeshua, you're not really saved), but to emphasize the Messiah's Jewishness, and because Yeshua, in Hebrew, means "salvation" (the longer form, Y'hoshua, means "YH(VH) is Salvation"), and I like to preserve that. I often use the Hebrew names of the Apostles to emphasize that they were all Jewish and Torah-observant as well.

In any case, someone calling themselves "Messianic" or "Messianic Jewish" should no more bother you than someone calling themself a Baptist, Calvinist, Lutheran, or whatever. Just consider it a denominational name, and don't put up a wall of separation over it.

Shalom.

Tefillin (Phylacteries) in Worship

2006-04-25T17:56:00.000-04:00

I got a question today about using tefillin, more commonly called (among Gentiles) phylacteries, in worship. Tefillin are the leather bands with small leather boxes which contain scrolls with passages from the Torah (most commonly Deu. 6:4) that Orthodox and Hasidic Jews wear in prayer.

There's nothing wrong with using tefillin in worship. Whlie Yeshua criticized those who made their tefillin over-large to show off their "piety" (Mat. 23:5), He did not condemn the practice itself and even paired it off with the Biblical practice of wearing tzitzit, or fringes.

The tradition comes from Deu. 6:6, 8, in which YHVH commands, "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart . . . And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes." Certainly, wearing tefillin is a very literal way of fulfilling this command. However, as I explained in the post on living a symbolic life, it's not the whole fulfillment.

In Exo. 13:16, YHVH commands Israel to keep the Passover every year, saying, "And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt." Therefore, we must interpret Deu. 6 in the light of the previous command in Exo. 13, and conclude that what God is saying that we must do symbollic acts ("bind them for a sign upon thine hand") and view symbollic things ("they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes") to remind us of God's commands and all that He in His boundless grace has done for us.

Literally binding the tefillin to one's hand and head certainly qualifies as keeping this command in both a very literal and yet also a symbolic way. However, it is not the only, or even the primary, means by which we are to keep this commandment, nor should it be considered a requirement. When we keep the Passover, we keep the command. When we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we keep the command. When we put on a talit and look on the tzitzit, we keep the command. When we are baptized, we keep the command. All of these things involve doing and looking upon physical symbols of the spiritual reality that we are a part of, and serve to keep God's Word frontmost in our mind.

Therefore, while a Messianic Jew or former Gentile may use tefillin as a part of his (or her, but that's another subject) worship, he is not required to, nor should he do so simply to show off how holy or Torah-observant he is.

Shalom.

The Silent Times

2006-04-12T01:12:00.000-04:00

A little under two weeks ago, the new year, as defined by God (Exo. 12:2), began--and with it began the cycle of salvation.

There's an old saying that "a Jew's catechism is his calendar"--and that's more true than most know. God's entire plan of salvation for Israel--and by extension, the world--is laid out on His calendar, according to His mo'edim (appointed times).

This is, accoroding to God, the first of months, the beginning of His plan. But before we go forward, let us look backwards for the moment: Before Pesach (Passover) is a long period between the seven Feastdays that God commanded at Sinai. The last feast was Sukkot, six months ago. That's not to downplay the importance of Hannukah or Purim--they too have prophetic importance--but simply to point out that this is the long gap, if you will, the long period of silence, corresponding to the 430 years of silence while Israel was in Egypt and the 430 years of silence between the last prophet and the coming of Messiah.

Within this long gap, we see Hanukkah and Purim, two feasts that celebrate Israel's victories over those who wanted to destroy her. In both, God's hand was active, but hidden: In the book of Esther, which explains the origins of Purim, God is not even mentioned by name! (This was to keep the people of Persia, where Esther was published, from obtaining and misusing the Name of YHVH. However, YHVH can be found in four places in acrostic form.) And the books of Maccabees, which record the origin of Hanukkah, were written in an era without the prophetic Spirit, a fact they themselves acknowledge (1 Mac. 14:41), which is why they were not added to the canon. Nevertheless, though invisible, God's hand was clearly sheilding His people, and Israel survived--just as He protected Israel from being wiped out by Egypt during their slavery there.

Just because we don't see God throwing down fire and parting seas does not mean that He has ceased to work. There's an old saying:

For lack of a nail, a shoe was lost.
For lack of a shoe, a horse was lost.
For lack of a horse, a rider was lost.
For lack of a rider, a battle was lost.
For lack of a battle, the war was lost.

God may act openly, visibly, with miracles and plagues to effect His will--or He may cause a single nail to loosen, and thus turn the tide of an entire war. He may send a prophet to demand Pharaoh let His people go with great signs and wonders, or He may place a single Jewess in the court of a king to intercede for her people.

Shalom.

Living a Prayerful Life

2006-03-30T22:52:00.000-05:00

I just updated the Beth HaMashiach blog. Here's the link, if you'd like to read it.

Shalom

The Dead Sea Scrolls

2006-03-24T01:04:00.000-05:00

I just posted a short piece on grace over at the Beth Hamashiach blog. I hope you like it.

It's been a while since I updated, and for that I apologize. It's been a very hectic couple of weeks. One of the more exciting things that I got a chance to do was see the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit at Discovery Place in Charlotte, NC. They'll be there through April and May; if you happen to be in the area, you simply have to see them for yourself. It's one thing to read about history or see programs about it on TV--it's quite another to actually look at scrolls, tools, coins, and so on that were actually used by people some 2000 years ago. It makes the past far more real, somehow.

Shalom.

Baptism vs. Mikveh vs. Circumcision

2006-03-07T20:06:00.000-05:00

This is one that I've been meaning to post for a while, but hadn't gotten around to.

It is very common in most Christian denominations to regard Baptism as a New Testament replacement for circumcision. And since Israelite children were to be circumcised on the eighth day, this becomes justification for infant baptism.

First of all, the problem as well as the sprinkling vs. immersion issue wouldn't exist if we made it a point to understand baptizo in its original Jewish cultural context: That of the mikveh. A mikveh was a ritual immersion which symbolized cleansing from sin and ritual impurity. When a Gentile became circumcised, they also immersed in the mikveh not only to be ritually purified, but to symbolize dying (being "buried" in the water) to their old, heathen lives and being reborn from the water as from the womb's amniotic fluid to their new lives as Jews.

Yochanan the Immerser, aka John the Baptist, was not creating a new ritual, but was using it in a new way: Instead of only Gentiles "dying" to their old lives and being raised anew as Jews, Jews who had been living in sin were "dying" and being "reborn" in an act of repentence. However, that wouldn't necessarily be the last time they ever ritually immersed. They would immerse if they became ritually unclean, for example, before going to the Temple. Jews also commonly (and still do today) ritually immerse on Yom Kippur as a demonstration of repentence.

It's truly sad that we have so far removed the Gospel from its original context that we get into debates over whether a person who was "baptized" as a child needs to be baptized upon coming into an adult faith. Indeed, during the Reformation wars, the followers of Zwingli were known for drowing the Anabaptists (so called because they insisted on the necessity of being "baptized again" upon receiving Christ).

However, while I believe that ritually immersing need not be restricted to the baptism one receives upon receiving Yeshua in faith, let's concentrate on that particular mikveh for a moment, and call it "baptism" for the sake of a convenient modern term. The question is, does baptism replace circumcision, and should infants therefore be circumcised?

The Biblical answer is clearly no. One has to reject at least one of two clear Biblical teachings in order to hold to infant baptism:

1) That we are not born into the Messiah's Covenant (as one is into the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants), but are re-born into it (Jn. 3).

2) Those who are immersed (baptized) are identifying themselves with the Messiah's death--i.e., dying to self--and are being raised again with Him into a new life in which one is dedicated to God (Col. 2:10-12, Gal. 3:27). An infant hasn't got an "old life" to die to yet.

As we've seen in detail, no covenant in Scripture aborogates a previous one, as we've seen in previous entries, nor does the New Covenant replace the Torah. Indeed, Yeshua affirmed the whole Torah, never once criticized the Torah in any way, and only challenged the man-made traditions which either turned it into a burden or which perverted or aborogated it.

So then, for Messianic Jewish parents to circumcise their child as a mark that he was born into the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants is not only appropriate, but commanded in Scripture. A Jewish child is the natural inheritor of those covenants from birth, while the Christian is only adopted into Abraham's greater family at the time of their Spiritual circumcision, when they personally enter into a covenant with the Messiah. Am I then claiming that a Jew is saved by virtue of being a Jew? Not at all! For those who are born into the Mosaic Covenant are likewise subject to the curses pronounced by the Torah for those who disobey it, and there is no one who keeps the Torah perfectly, no one who is without sin! It was these curses that Yeshua took on Himself at the Cross so that we would not have to suffer them, and the Jew needs that redemption most of all, for they are held to the highest standard of all by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

This is why a Jew is both circumcised at birth and receives mikveh at the time of his Spiritual Rebirth--they are the seals of two separate covenants.

For Gentile Christian parents to dedicate their child to the Lord before the congregation is likewise appropriate. Such a dedication declares to all that they will raise the child to love and fear God and follow His commandments, but does not pretend to replace the child's personal re-birth.

What is not appropriate is to "water down" (if you'll pardon the pun) the immersion into the Messiah by sprinkling those who have not yet been born again in the Spirit and have not received the Spirit's circumcision of the heart (the promise of Jeremiah's prophecy) and calling it "baptism."

To summarize: Jews are born, and that is why they are circumcised immediately after birth. However, believers in the Messiah Yeshua, whether we call them Christians or Messianics, are not born but re-born, so to "circumcise" them with infant baptism, years before they are born in the Spirit, would be like trying to circumcise a Jewish child in the womb. The only way one can justify baptizing infants is to claim that they need not be born again in the Spirit to enter the Messiah's Covenant (which would be a complete repudiation of the entire NT) or to claim that even those who are truly "born again" may fall away from the Covenant.

Shalom.

Blessing God for Our Troubles

2006-03-02T17:17:00.000-05:00

A few hours ago, my father's sister was found dead in her apartment. I don't know for certain the cause, though a heart attack isn't unlikely.

My Aunt Sandy was a kind, but often lonely woman. Most of my memories of her involve family get-togethers during the holidays. Her husband, my Uncle Glenn, passed away some years ago, and they had no children.

I have to admit right now that I'm feeling a bit guilty at having not spent more time with her and gotten to know her better. Even so, I'm going to miss her terribly.

Her death is going to be much harder on my father than me, who was the one who found her after he and Aunt Joyce were unable to reach her by phone. It will be hardest of all on Aunt Joyce, who has built much of her life around caring for Sandy and being there for her. Your prayers for both of them is appreciated.

At the moment, I'm mostly feeling . . . heavy. It's hard to find words beyond that.

This is a rough time of year for everyone at Beth HaMashiach. As we get closer to Pesach, the Passover, which is probably our greatest outreach, things always have a way of going wrong on multiple levels. Much as Job faced the loss of his property and loved ones and health at the hands of the Adversary all at once, we're dealing with multiple issues of our own. The person who offered to watch the rabbi's children so that he and his wife could go to Israel in a few weeks has been hospitalized with a heart condition (fortunately, she should recover), we've had some unusual internal strife among the members, at least one extended unemployment, and now a family death.

Job, facing much worse loss than we have (praise God!), was still able to say, "Blessed be the name of YHVH." In that Spirit, I'd like to "recite" the Mourner's Kaddish for my aunt:

Exalted and sanctified is God's great name in the world which He has created according to His will, and may He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days, and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon; and say, Amen.

May His great Name be blessed forever and for all eternity.

Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored, elevated and lauded be the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, beyond all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that are spoken in the world; and say, Amen.

May there be great peace from heaven, and life, for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

May she find the peace with the Lord that she was denied in this life.

Shalom.

Thoughts on Lent

2006-03-01T13:58:00.000-05:00

This post came out of a short discussion on keeping Lent on FR (see link). Obviously, I won't be keeping the fast, but as you guys know, I have nothing against tradition per se. Just the opposite, in fact. I simply believe, per the Lord's example, that all tradition must be tested against the written Word of God and altered or tossed out where there is the least conflict with the plain meaning of Scripture.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Lent as a tradition. In fact, there's a Jewish corollary on the other side of the sun, where it is traditional to fast for the 40 days leading up to Yom Kippur, a season called T'shuva (repentance). The tradition came out of another tradition which said that those were the 40 days that Moses fasted before the Lord on Israel's behalf after the golden calf incident (Ex. 34:28) and descended on Yom Kippur with the new stone tablets, showing that God had forgiven Israel and restored the covenant.

It is likely that it was during that same period that Yeshua fasted in the wilderness and was tested by the Adversary.

However, my fellow Freeper P-Marlowe is quite right that anyone who fasts on a particular day should avoid boasting of it in any way, nor should he see the fast as an avenue to righteousness in and of itself. Speaking (I believe) of Yom Kippur, Isaiah writes (and here I'll use the old King James, which probably best expresses the poetry),

Wherefore have we fasted, say they,
and thou seest not?
wherefore have we afflicted our soul,
and thou takest no knowledge?
Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure,
and exact all your labours.
Behold, ye fast for strife and debate,
and to smite with the fist of wickedness:
ye shall not fast as ye do this day,
to make your voice to be heard on high.

Is it such a fast that I have chosen?
a day for a man to afflict his soul?
is it to bow down his head as a bulrush,
and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
wilt thou call this a fast,
and an acceptable day to the LORD?

Is not this the fast that I have chosen?
to loose the bands of wickedness,
to undo the heavy burdens,
and to let the oppressed go free,
and that ye break every yoke?
Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry,
and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house?
when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him;
and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

Then shall thy light break forth as the morning,
and thine health shall spring forth speedily:
and thy righteousness shall go before thee;
the glory of the LORD shall be thy reward.
Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer;
thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am.
If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke,
the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;
And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry,
and satisfy the afflicted soul;
then shall thy light rise in obscurity,
and thy darkness be as the noonday:
And the LORD shall guide thee continually,
and satisfy thy soul in drought,
and make fat thy bones:
and thou shalt be like a watered garden,
and like a spring of water,
whose waters fail not.

--Isa. 58:3-11

Speaking, I believe, of the same season, Yeshua says,

And when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, of a sad face. For they disfigure their faces so that they may appear to men to fast. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to fast, but to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly. (Mat. 6:16-18)

The same applies to my Catholic friends who fast--that is, give up one or more pleasures--during Lent. There's nothing wrong with the tradition, though I would point out that Yeshua's disciples did not fast leading up to the Passover in which He was Crucified, for,

Yeshua said to them, "Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast" (Mat. 9:15).

However, don't fall into the trap of telling each other what you are giving up. First of all, you risk it becoming a matter of pride and one-upping each other, and secondly, Yeshua told us explicitly to do such things in private and before God, not openly before men.

Shalom.

The B'rit Chadasha Pages

We've Moved

The New Broken Branches

"Hey! Get That Ugly Thing Off My Mountain!"

Updates to Hebrew Root

The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism

The Poster Awaiting Pres. Bush

Angels on the Head of a Pin

The Importance of Religion As Well As "Spirituality"

New Article on HebrewRoot

Mixed Traditions

The Once and Future Antiochus

Hanukkah: Particularly Happy for Messianic Jews

A Response to Rabbi Singer re: Yoma 39b

Using the Talmud

The Context

Gratuitous Hatred and Yeshua’s Death

The End of Sacrifice?

Conclusion

A Correction With Apologies

A Much Belated High Holy Day Post

A Ping From CNN

Dinner With An Israeli

On Knowledge in the Tanakh

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 6

Well, I'm back. I've finished moving into the new house, with the exception of a couple of pieces of furniture which I will get next week, and a few dozen boxes of books to be put back on the shelves. So let's return to our regularly-scheduled blogging:

To Embrace Hebrew Roots: Part IIThe Bible & The Talmud

Overview

Still Alive!

Random Update

Tisha B'Av

A Response to Pyromaniacs

A Theological Danger?

A Ecclesiological Danger?

An Evangelistic Danger?

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 5

Answering Vicki’s Specific Objections

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 4

Promoters of Hebrew Roots

HebrewRoot Update

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 3

Anti-Semitism?

An Answer to SeekGod.ca, Part 2

To Embrace Hebrew Roots: Part I

Introduction

Anti-Semitism?

An Answer to SeekGod.ca

Recent Articles

Is Oral Torah Necessary to Keep the Written?

Once again, we see that I'm a slacker

The Just-In-Time G-d

Times of Refreshing

New Debate

Website Updates & Thoughts On Passover

Passover

Sabbath Debate After-Report

Updates to Hebrew Root

Stolen Sign

Hebrew Root & Other Excitement

Long Absence and a Linguistic Question

Oops

Yom Kippur, Part 2: The Exodus and the Future

Yom Kippur, Part 1: Traditions and Blood

Rosh Hashanah

The Gospel According to the Inner Circle: Chronology

Mark Steyn: The axis of evenhandedness

How NOT To Get a Comment On My Blog

Mark Steyn: It's breeding obvious, mate

Rockets hit Lebanon despite cease-fire

A Youth Exodus From Church -- What Are We Doing Wrong?

Multiple Fulfillments of Prophecy

Revelation Was NOT Written Before 70 AD!

Is the Church an Enemy of the Gospel For Its Own Sake?

The True Jew

The Ekklesia and Israel

The Trouble with Postmill

When God Closes a Door

Escalations

The National Council of (Apostate) Churches Has Lost Their Collective Mind

The Gospel According to the Inner Circle, Pt. 2: The Light of God

To Embrace Hebrew Roots: Part II
The Bible & The Talmud