cmp.2009.07.20
ed.2009.08.08.01 (Reposted With different name and URL.)
First Comments Here
Organization
1. Greeting
2. The Oppression of the Poor
3. The Gospel
4. A Den of Thieves
5. The Workman's Hire
6. We Need Servants--Not Prayers
7. True Discipleship
1. Greeting
Pastor [ omitted ],
Greeting in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Shepherd!
Today, several children that I know attended a yearly program offered by the Church, organized under the youth ministry.
These particular children that I know, as many of the others that take part in this program, are from severely broken homes and in general, have no real knowledge or pursuit of Jesus in their homes.
2. The Oppression of the Poor
When they arrived for the first day of this program offered by the church, they were required to register and pay. Because they are very poor, a friend who helps me with them, paid ten dollars for each of them. Then, upon noticing the t-shirts that the other children were wearing, they felt compelled to purchase these for the children as well--another ten dollars for each child for a shirt that was made to market for another Christian organization. However, I can understand why these shirts were purchased for these children, because these particular children would have felt terribly out of place; the intensity of this particular situation was already difficult for them.
There is no doubt that these children had fun today. After the program ended, my friend took them to eat, and they were all looking forward for the next day.
I know that there is a "prevailing wisdom" in the Church today regarding the "best practices" for entertaining and influencing children. I know that for years the Church has tried to perfect these techniques. And, I have also seen how year after year, churches will publish how many children came, and how many children "invited Jesus into their hearts."
When we place a condition for the poor to hear the gospel and to feel at peace around believers, then we are in fact placing a burden on their shoulders; this is oppression of the poor; and, we are selling the free Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We have exchanged the demonstration of The Spirit and Power for intellectualism, commercialism, and "sustainable best practices for business". There is only one problem with this of course: God can't stand it.
God cares about intimacy with people, He cares about their eternal lives, He cares if they are ransomed from Sin and Death, and He cares that they are set free from the authority of Sin over their lives. Transient "spiritual" moments full of entertainment and indulgence are not what we were commanded to provide; and certainly, there is nothing wrong with helping children have fun. However, we were commanded to disciple the nations: by teaching how to obey the commandments of Jesus. This implies relationship, not moments of entertainment. If the power of God is not good enough to when the faith of others, and we have to rely on our own strength, then the Gospel is pointless.
3. The Gospel
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about finding favor with God, freedom from the authority of Sin in our lives, so we can live to do good works like we were created to do; and, the Gospel is for freedom from the consequence Sin--the Gospel is about forgiveness, the release from the just consequences of our actions, so our sin is remembered no more. And this Gospel was paid for fully, for all who are willing to trust in Jesus as Lord evidenced by their obedience to Him as the Lord of their lives--and this is why discipleship is so important.
This is the Gospel. Paul said to let any man be accursed if he preaches a different gospel.
4. A Den of Thieves
On a Passover, Jesus visited the Temple in Jerusalem, and after seeing what was going on, He made the following accusation:
Luke 19
45. Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling,
46. saying to them, "It is written, 'AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN."
Now how can Jesus accuse them of being thieves if they are not stealing from each other? They were, after all, selling items for sacrifice. It was because they were stealing from the worshippers, and from God. The House of God was devoted, and set apart for prayer and worship--without cost. The worshippers who came, were denied what God had given them, a consecrated house. The House of God was set apart for Him to fellowship with us--without people adding their own conditions.
Jesus was actually quoting a passage from Jeremiah. Unfortunately, the New Testament doesn't go into a lot of explanation about how this was considered thievery like Jeremiah does.
Jeremiah clarifies:
Jeremiah 7
6. if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin,
7. then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.
How is it that today we oppress the foreigner, the poor, the orphans, and widows in the "House of God", yet at the same we feel entitled to "dwell" in that same house, contrary to the command of God?
We have charged and set a condition for the poor, the needy, and afflicted to come to the house of God, to hear the name of God, and to see the demonstration of His Power, (even if that demonstration was not present). We have exchanged the demonstration of the Spirit and Power of God for theatrics and the ever present "next thing" for someone to buy.
The Workman's Hire
Traditionally, in defense of placing a condition on the proclamation of the Gospel, we cite:
1 Timothy 5
17. The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
18. For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
Now, even if we were paying the "workmen" who were helping us with these programs, and if these "workmen" were not actually volunteers, this verse would still not justify selling a gospel that had already been purchased for them to hear freely.
What does Paul mean?
1 Cor. 9
14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.
He states the one who labors in word and teaching is worthy of double honor, and their hire, so that they can live--not so that they can become wealthy or rewarded in this life, because the laborer who labors in faith, labors for the eternal reward--in faith.
We ask children, those who have never been taught the gospel, the poor, the needy, and the afflicted to pay for stage productions, props, facility expenses, pamphlets, and more, just to hear the gospel and to fellowship with believers--in the House of God. This is like going to someone else's house, inviting strangers over for a party, and then charging them to cover "costs" but never actually giving the owner the funds collected. God doesn't desire money from us--and especially not from the oppressed--He requires our obedience.
5. A Wiser Way
Wisdom is the ability to distinguish between Good and Evil. And, how do we distinguish between Good and Evil, but by the commandment of God? As it is written, "Your Word is a light unto my feet, and a lamp onto my path." So then, how does God say to preach the Gospel? Contrary to popular culture and the best practices embraced by the Church for winning an audience and influencing people, true Wisdom is to obey the commandment of God--and this wisdom from God is contrary to the wisdom of men.
About two weeks ago, I spoke with a Pastor from the church about getting help with these children. Since I am a missionary and have been all of my life, I really do understand the necessity of depending on the Body of Christ for support.
However, contrary to the command of Jesus, "to go into the World", the Pastor advised me to bring all of the children that I was working with to the Church, (despite having no transportation to do so). Why does the Church demand that the oppressed should submit to the intimidation of the Church, and then require them to quite literally "beg" for clothes and food that they need?
Instead of the wealthiest church in this community helping these children, a friend of mine who lives several thousands miles away gave me a gift card to buy these children desperately needed shoes. One child was wearing shoes that were two sizes two small, and was in pain whenever he walked. Another child had hand-me-down shoes that were two sizes too big. I was at the same time incredibly thankful for this man's generosity to buy them shoes, and at the same time distressed that the local churches would not serve these families, as we are commanded to by Jesus.
Quite truthfully, other than asking for help for these children, the only other thing that I have asked from the church was for people to come visit these children and their families.
Ironically, in the justification that Christians don't really have to go "into the World" to preach the Gospel, the Church instead teaches that they only have to go across the street, or next door. But, where are these disciples? Where are all of the youth that are being discipled to obey the commandments of Jesus--to visit the sick, and the prisoner; to visit the orphans and widows in their distress? The truth is, they are not being discipled to do this. This is true and evident, because they aren't doing this.
6. We Need Servants--Not Prayers
Does Jesus command the Church to pray for the needy, or to serve them? What good will prayer do if the one praying ignores God's voice commanding them to obey? Faith without works is meaningless. We don't need to ask God His will for our lives when it is perfectly clear: we are a kingdom of priests, commanded to serve in obedience in the love of Jesus.
It is through compulsion that I share what I know to be the right way, because I would be ashamed if the only thing I did was criticize or point out flaws, (even despite my own immaturity in doing so). And unfortunately, it is my own immaturity, and disobedience in this same way that makes even my service not as effective as it is supposed to be. And so it remains, that I need the help of the church--but more importantly, so do these children and their families.
Jesus promised that the power of the Holy Spirit would follow those that trust in Him, and that their trust would be evident by their obedience. And so, we need disciples who are committed to obedience to Jesus to come here, because in their trust and obedience, the Spirit and Power of God can truly be known. This is what we need the most.
If this request for help in this field sounds desperate, it is because we are overwhelmingly in need for the Church to help this community by showing them the love of Jesus. The poor are always with us; they are always around us. We have opened our home to these children and their families; but it is incredibly difficult to do this alone.
Spiritualness is not found in expense, or the amount of children that come to our churches. Our spiritualness, (our "religion", as James teaches), is measured in our obedience to the commandment of Jesus, which includes the command for us to visit and to send disciples to the children, the needy, the afflicted and the prisoner.
I am sharing this commandment to bring into rememberance the need of those of us trying to walk in obedience even though we are overwhelmed. And this commandment is not new, but the commandment of the One we call "Lord": Make disciples, teaching them to obey all that Jesus commanded. Where are the workers that the Church has been discipling? Why are Christians ignoring their own neighbors, and refusing to serve them?
7. True Discipleship
We must teach through demonstration, inviting those we disciple into our home so they can learn how we invite the poor into our home; we have to place them in a position to use their gifts so they can learn obedience to Jesus, let them follow in our footsteps throughout our day. Show them how to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, and visit the needy in their distress. This is true discipleship--there is no other valid form of discipleship than the form that Jesus showed us.
But what should we do? We have at our disposal something invaluable, that was in fact already purchased: the lives of believers. We must send them into the World as Jesus did--to their neighbors first. We cannot require the world to come to us.
If we do not trust in the power of God and in the Gospel of Jesus, (and this becomes evident when we do not serve our neighbors), then the world will remember what it is we actually trust in. If we depended on "entertainment" and "expense", to gain their faith, then they will remember the entertainment and expense--and their faith will then be exchanged for the next most entertaining thing they find. And, as a result, what they remember, is what they will share with others.
But rather, if we depend on demonstration of the Spirit and Power of God to help them find favor with God, then their faith will be founded upon an unshakable rock. Therefore, it remains true that because of our own immaturity, we resort to our own strength rather than Jesus' to do the will of God. But this walk can only begin when trust is mixed with obedience.
Even if it is impossible for your church to send people to this neighborhood, or cannot help relieve some of the needs of the children we are sending to your program this week, please, please send those you are discipling into the community around your church, and to their own neighbors. There is need all around us; all it takes is the love of Christ to serve them and meet their needs. But, you will have to teach them how to do this first, (practically, by letting them walk in your footsteps as you walk in the steps of Jesus).
In the name of Christ Jesus the Lord of Lords, may you grow in favor and peace in Him as you trust in His faithfulness to fulfill His promises to you.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
A Defense for Messianic Judaism
cmp.2009.08.05
ed.2009.08.05.03
There is a strong movement in the Church to uphold the commands of Moses, especially in view of Rabbinical interpretation. I disagree with this. That being said, there are a lot of arguments to support both positions. I am posting the dialogue I had with "K" here to help show both sides of this division in the Church today.
Note: There was a significant portion of this conversation that occured in an instant messaging conversation, but I was not able to save the conversation. Actually, I think it was probably the more substantive part of this conversation, and I regret losing it. I have included a block to describe, (in my words), what was said.
K Said:
-----------
[Personal Info Omitted by e.s.] I have one question though what about when Yeshua said ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth until heaven and earth disappear not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20 I ask this because you say you are messianic and yet you do not believe in the new testament and you say that the Jewish religion is antichrist? I am a little confused on that comment. Yeshua came as a Jew, lived and walked as a Jew, died as a Jew, resurrected as a Jew and will return as a Jew. He wore tsit tsit and celebrated Passover, Shabbat...he kept all Jewish law and did he not say in Matthew 10:38" and anyone who does not take up his cross follow me is not worthy of me." Should we not keep the law as He said to and walk the way He walked. He said He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. He also said in John 4:22 "For Salvation is from the Jews."
Shalom,
K
e.s. response:
Wow. I think you misunderstood.
You said:
-------------
Matthew 5:17-20 I ask this because you say you are messianic and yet you do not believe in the new testament
me:
------------------
I totally believe in the new testament, and the old.
You:
-------------
and you say that the Jewish religion is antichrist? I am a little confused on that comment.
Me:
------------
If you ask a Rabbi if they believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they will say no. If you ask them if they believe that they must trust in Him to be saved from destruction, they will say no.
According to the new testament, this by definition is being anti-christ, against Jesus. Heck, they stand up behind pulpits and say they are anti-christs.
You said:
---------------
Yeshua came as a Jew, lived and walked as a Jew, died as a Jew, resurrected as a Jew and will return as a Jew.
Me:
--------------
Careful where you get your "info". According to Scripture, He was a "Hebrew". Though, if He existed before Abraham, He certainly was not Hebrew, but that is a different topic.
Ask a "Rabbi" what a Jew is, and they will say someone that submits to tradition, halakha and the Rabbis, someone born of a Jewish mother. All of this is a "new" definition of Judaism. Jesus was very "Anti-tradition, anti-intelletualism, anti elitism, etc".
You said:
--------------
He wore tsit tsit and celebrated Passover, Shabbat...he kept all Jewish law
Me:
------------
According to the Bible, Jesus broke their traditions, and their view of what the law meant. He worked on Shabbat, Healed on Shabbat, got food from the crops on Shabbat. He said they did not really understand the law, yet he taught people to break the "Pharasaic and Sadducean" perception of the law.
Also, if Jesus wore a four cornered garment, I am sure he did wear tsit tsit. However, there a verse in Scripture where a woman grabbed the "Hem" of his garment, and people twist that into meaning "Tsit Tsit". In other words, I have no clue if he did or not. Nor does it matter.
The law He followed was HIS law that He established before the foundation of the Earth, and that was shadowed after Him. And He did not teach anyone to break that His law, but He taught them to see through Moses' command that was a shadow to see His eternal commandm (Hebrews). And that law will never pass away.
You said:
--------------------
and did he not say in Matthew 10:38" and anyone who does not take up his cross follow me is not worthy of me." Should we not keep the law as He said to and walk the way He walked.
Response:
-------------------
Jesus said that they neglected the weightier matters of the law to uphold their own tradition. Tell me, what is more important, to feed the hungry every day, or keep kosher every day?
So, in this way, we forsake the commandment of God to fulfill our own tradition. Jesus gave a whole lot of new commandments, that were much more difficult to uphold than Moses'. So, instead of studying those people often get distracted studying tradition, and the intellectualism of men.
Me, I prefer to teach people to walk in the way and example of Jesus, and letting the Holy Spirit do the rest. So, when I see someone dedicated to visiting the prisoners, feeding the hungry, taking care of the orphans, the widows, the afflicted and needy in their distress, then I will have found someone upholding the law of Jesus AND the law of Moses.
You said:
-------------------------
He said He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. He also said in John 4:22 "For Salvation is from the Jews."
Response:
------------------
Unfortunately, you do not understand the law of Christ. If you did, you wouldn't have asked me all this. I know this is offensive, so I will give you evidence.
They asked Jesus what the greatest commandment IN THE LAW was. Jesus said, to love with all of YOUR Mind, Emotions, and Means.
But then, He gave a new commandment. To love as He Loved Us. This is the greatest commandment, not to love with OUR own abilities, but to love with HIS heart, HIS mind, and HIS abundance. Totally different thing.
And then Paul writes, "Bear each other's burdens and thereby fulfill the Law of Christ.
This is the Law that Moses was patterned after. It is a much GREATER law. It always WAS the law. But, it was because of the hardness of Israel's heart that God gave them the law of Moses, when He wanted them to walk into something nobler and greater. This is why the law of Moses was called a schoolmaster... to teach Israel how to learn to become selfless, to love unconditionally, and to obey the Heavenly law, and not the Earthly.
If the Covenant and Law of Moses was Eternal, then certainly another would not have been given.
K Said:
-----------
My thoughts are is that all you see are men's decisions to do what God commanded again...you do not even see that these men are being led by the Holy Spirit to do this....the same reason I attend a messianic judaism synogogue because God told me to...now you can see it how ever you want but I have had visions and dreams and I am very in tune with the Holy Spirit as I think many people who listen to God are....He will pour out His spirit on mankind young men will see visions and old men will dream dreams....If there is a movement to walk as God commanded thousands years ago why do you see it as only traditions...when I hear it as God's voice and word has not changed ...only the people have not been listening...the things that these people do is because it was commanded by God it doesn't matter when...He didn't change His laws...His laws will never change...
e.s. response:
Okay... You said taht you don't understand... and that is partly because I haven't explained it... So don't jump to any conclusions yet. Please. :)
I didn't say Jesus wasn't Hebrew, nor did I say that Jesus didn't observe the law of Moses to a degree. (He obviously deviated from it quite a bit in the view of the Rabbis).
The point I am making is that Modern Judaism is nothing like Judaism during the time of Jesus.
For example, the Talmud and the Mishnah were compiled 300 years AFTER Jesus died.
One of the things written was that they wanted to get people wearing Tzit Tzit again. They noticed that people weren't wearing four cornered garments anymore, so they had no reason to wear the tzit tzit. Four cornered garments went out of vogue a long long long time ago.
So, they created the Talit Katans and the Tallits so that they could observe this commandment. There was no law to wear four cornered garments. So, they created a tradition to wear four cornered garments SO they could fulfill the law of tzit tzit.
I suppose I could give you a bunch of references for this, but then google will feel depressed... so, have a gander yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=history+of+tallit
The Mishnah and the Talmud were compiled after Jesus' death, to help stop people from converting to Christianity. /Some/ of what is in the Mishneh MAY have been taken from ancient texts, but obviously, the majority of it was new, (since it references modern things).
Also... During Jesus' life, Hebrew was a dead language, (like Latin), spoken by scholars only. Common folks spoke Aramaic, Greek, etc.
Again, if we imitate modern Jews, who imitate Pharisees, who Jesus called a Synagogue of Satan, we certainly will not be imitating Jesus.
The imitation of Jesus comes through obeying His commands and doing what He did.
Research for yourself, the History of Hebrew, History of the Talmud, History of the Mishnah, etc.
I would love to know your thoughts.
K Said:
-----------
Well the scripture also says that in the end times that demons will be able to perform miracles that even the elect will be fooled by and I must tell you that the things I saw the first things I was shown told me they were from God but I know they weren't for many reasons. I do know that God allowed me to see these things to bring me to Him and I did have many visions and dreams that were from God. I think if you have doubts in what people say or share with you then you should pray for discernment. The Lord has blessed me with discernment in these days. Which is the only way I determined which visions and dreams are from God and which are from the enemy. I do not think keeping Shabbat and celebrating God's commanded feasts are traditions. He said forever...I believe what God says. Washing hands He said was a tradition....resting in God and remembering the things He did are not traditions they are sacred days to be thankful for what He does. Tsit Tsit is not a tradition it is to remind men constantly of the Lord's commandments since men struggle more than women. The prayer shaw shows are humbleness before God and closes us off from the world and brings and encircles us with abarrier from the world so we can just be intimate with God.The yamaka also shows humilty and reminds us that there is someone above us. To dress modest is to be mindful of others and help our brothers and sisters from stumbling.There are many deep beautiful meanings behind what you call traditions...which perhaps is all you see but you should study the reasons for these things before castinng judgement and then you will see God's reasoning for commaning those things ans the wisdom that came with it. It is really quite beautiful. None of these thinsg did Yeshua command not to be done. In fact He did them we wore prayer shaws and tsit tsit and celebrated God's commanded holidays and He did observe shabbat....whether or not you want to hear this it is true...ask Him...pray about it....He is right next to you.
e.s. response:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I have heard so many people tell me of their visions and dreams.
However, Scripture itself warns me to be wary of those who claim these things.
And Jesus Himself commanded me in Scripture not to submit or adhere to the traditions and intellectualism of men.
So, if people are telling me to, then they are telling me to disobey Jesus. I would rather obey what He specifically said rather than be led by someone else's "experience" that encourages them to teach me to disobey.
And no, I am not talking about you.
e.s response:
was going to send this to you earlier, but I forgot... I took it from:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/05/mat-153-do-not-forsake-commandment-of.html
but here is a part of it:
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.
Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
2 Corinthians 1:9-10
Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He Son whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.
e.s. response:
"The Lord has blessed me with discernment in these days. Which is the only way I determined which visions and dreams are from God and which are from the enemy."
Modern Christianity has exchanged the term "discernment" for the word "Intuition". Like, people believe that "discernment" is some spiritual gift that allows you to figure out things through "feelings" and "intuition".
In Scripture though, the word is actually the verb of "To Judge" according to Word/Law.
So, if your foundation is this, then I obviously cannot persuade you. Though, even the Mormons are as convinced as you are. And, we are commanded not to rely on our own strength, gifts, understanding, dreams, hearts, etc.
Jesus followed the Shabbat, every day. And He observed Shabbat in a different way than the Jews did. In otherwords, the commandment of Jesus is Eternal--forever. But the way in which His commandments are/were observed changed.
For example, the heavenly, eternal command regarding "cleanliness" had nothing to do with what went inside of you, but what came out, and abstaining from fellowship with non-believers, and those that had fallen away. Israel was too stubborn and rebelious to obey this command, so Moses gave them a simpler one. This happened time and again.
For example: Mark 7:19
For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Jesus changed the understanding of this law. There are actually morons out there that say what is in parenthesis is not really what Jesus said. (this is totally untrue, and is in all of the Greek/Aramaic manuscripts).
Then again, they claim that the Apostles wrote in Hebrew too, and that Israelis spoke in Hebrew too.
So, you are going to have to pick your standard for truth. Personally, I believe that the Spirit gave us the Scripture we have today, so I will follow His leading. Also, I do not trust my own heart to "know His voice" the way I should. Sometimes I am deceived.
So, perhaps you are more mature than me, and have some awesome revelation that will supercede Scripture. Or, the Spirit that is leading you is deceiving you and encouraging me to disobey the Law of Jesus and to submit to the Law of Moses. It cannot be the case that we are free from the law if we are led by the Spirit but at the same time still required to submit to the law of Moses and the traditions of Rabbis.
Galatians 5:
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
12Those who desire (Y)to make a good showing in the flesh try to (Z)compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they (AA)will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
But why do Christians teach obedience to the commandments of Moses?
Galatians 6:
13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.
According to Paul, it was because he taught people to depart from the Law of Moses that he was persecuted:
Galatians 5:
11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.
12 I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Paul even implied that the stumbling block of the cross of Christ was that there was no requirement to submit to bondage under the law of Moses.
But what of the Eternal Law? Scripture very clearly says that Moses gave to Israel a "Pattern" of what He saw in Heaven. And, what was in Heaven was Eternal, but His pattern was a shadow intended to let people know that something like it but better existed, and would replace the shadow at some point.
It is the observance of this eternal law that must be observed. Just like Jesus taught us how to, by keeping every day holy, not defiling ourselves with what comes out of us, etc, etc. There are SO many of His commandments. That is why I started writing those articles anyway:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2008/08/matt-123-call-his-name-immanuel.html
Anyhoo. As I said before, I cannot persuade you from Scripture if your standard for faith is warm fuzzy feelings and what these folks have been teaching you. If you come onto my "Rock", then certainly, I can persuade you.
However, I recommend you study it for yourself. The three books to study this A LOT, is Galatians, Hebrews and then Romans. Over and over again, in that order.
Avoid the "Judiazer" translations that try to force translations into Hebrew, etc. These simply are not correct translations. You can however find Interlinear Greek bibles online or so you can look things up for yourself. Try http://www.biblos.com too for interlinear versions, etc.
The point is, if you want to study this out, I would be more than happy to help you find references. I would prefer that your faith be established on what you find in Scripture, rather than my intellectualism.
K Said:
-----------
If you knew me you would know just how much I do trust in the Lord. If you knew me you would never doubt that.
e.s. response
I know me, and I know that I do not Trust Him.
If I did, His promise would come true. "These signs will follow those that trust, (believe), they WILL cast out demons, raise the dead ..." etc, etc.
The love of God is being perfected in me. And so is my faith. So, I try not to rely to heavily on any claim of mine of super spirituality, trustworthiness, love, etc.
Though, I am growing! :)
So, if I don't trust my own intellectalism, or my own understanding, or my own maturity in Him, how would it be reasonable to trust in someone else's--since He commanded me specifically not to do both?
K Said:
-----------
Do you really think using the word morons to refer to your brothers and sister iis a christian way to think...you see maybe you do not believe in discernment because you think everyone besides you is a moron and they could not possibly be hearing the holy spirit or being lead by it... I am only saying that when God says something that He meant it and doesn't lie...do you think He lies? He said not one word from the law would ever change...that God's law is forever...I kind of take the word forever to mean forever because God said it was forever and God doesn't lie ...that is just me...i do not think it is me who is not reading the scriptures...I think I am reading them very clearly ...why do I think that because I pray on it and ask God to tell me...I believe my Lord is faithful, does not lie and always answers prayers asked in His son name....which is why I know when I ask for discernment I am given it...sounds like you have little faith which is why you do not believe in discernment or that God will answer prayers.
e.s. response:
You said:
------------
Do you really think using the word morons to refer to your brothers and sister iis a christian way to think...
Response:
------------
Actually, what I said was:
"There are actually morons out there that say what is in parenthesis is not really what Jesus said. (this is totally untrue, and is in all of the Greek/Aramaic manuscripts)."
And yes, if people intend to twist Scripture around, to take out, to put in, just to promote their doctrines, then yes, Moron would be a nice word. Jesus used other words, like a "Synagogue of Satan". So, in this sense, I am just quoting Jesus, but being more politically correct.
You Said:
--------------
you see maybe you do not believe in discernment because you think everyone besides you is a moron and they could not possibly be hearing the holy spirit or being lead by it...
Response:
-------------
You are making a lot of assumptions about me. I have no clue why you think that I think everyone is a Moron. :(
So, I will retract "Moron", and say that people who distort and twist scripture to promote the tradition and intellectualism of men, are in fact a Synagogue of Satan. These are Jesus' words, not mine. He rebuked these people, so if you don't like it, take it up with Him.
You said:
------------
I am only saying that when God says something that He meant it and doesn't lie...do you think He lies?
Response:
------------
This is a "Strawman" argument. You are implying that I disagree with this statement in order to prove a point. I do agree that these things are true, and I have no idea why you are implying that I don't.
You Said:
------------
He said not one word from the law would ever change...that God's law is forever...I kind of take the word forever to mean forever because God said it was forever and God doesn't lie ...that is just me...
Response:
------------
Actually, the Bible contradicts you:
Hebrews 7:12
For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
This is actually mentioned over and over again, especially in the O.T. There was a LOT of the "law" that was changed. Or rather, a lot of Moses' law that was obsoleted by the true and Eternal Heavenly law, that existed well before Moses.
You Said:
------------
i do not think it is me who is not reading the scriptures...I think I am reading them very clearly ...
Response:
------------
You have never actually made an argument from Scripture, but from your feeling of discernment, and from other's intellectualism. For example, the claim that Jesus' name back then was "Yeshua", despite the fact that Hebrew was a dead language, and the only names recorded for Him are Iesos in Greek, Ishoa in Aramaic, and Immanuel in Hebrew.
You Said:
------------
sounds like you have little faith which is why you do not believe in discernment or that God will answer prayers.
Response:
------------
You are right that I have little faith, but I am growing. I believe that all faith, (trust rather), must be founded on the Word of God. If God hasn't promised it, then there is no point in hoping for it.
I do not put my faith on my "gifting", "my intellecte", or "feelings", but on the Word and the Power of God. This is a commandment, that you are repeatedly asking me to disobey in order to uphold what you believe are valid "traditions".
If I trust in something that God has not promised, then I am sinning. Because, anything not of faith is SIN.
K Said:
-----------
As I have said before you shouls pray on it...but it was just a suggestion from Yeshua...you have free will.
e.s. response:
You Said:
------------------
As I have said before you shouls pray on it...but it was just a suggestion from Yeshua...you have free will.
Response:
-----------------
Are you suggesting that I should pray about whether or not I should obey the command of Jesus and not forsake the commandment of God for the tradition of Men?
Why would I have to pray in order to obey?
Why do you keep trying to convince me to obey the tradition of men, when I am apparently obeying the commandment of Jesus by forsaking the tradition of men?
Do you see how you appear to be contradicting yourself? On one hand, you are telling me to submit to the traditions and commandments of Rabbis, and on the other you are telling me to disobey Jesus, and HIS eternal law which was existent way before Moses.
How do you justify teaching me to disobey Jesus?
e.s. NOTE
Okay, this is where it get's confusing because I lost the text of the Instant Messaging Conversation. Essentially, this is where substance of our disagreement took place. From what I understood, "K" is arguing that God led them to pursue observance of Jewish laws and traditions through visions and dreams. And that it is valid to establish faith upon these things.
I argued that God would never lead someone to disobey the commandments of Jesus, through visions or otherwise. That Joseph Smith had visions, and many people have contradicting visions. And so, we must use the Word of God as a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path, to discern the validity of our dreams and visions and other "spiritual" experiences.
"K" then claimed to have seen Jesus. And that these experiences were so extraordinary that they couldn't possibly be doubted. I was accused of trying to make them doubt their experiences, and I confirmed this.
I argued that we are often led astray when we lean on our own understanding and experiences. And I argued, that there are ways to validate the "truth" of these experiences according to Scripture. After this conversation, I sent the following message ...
e.s. response:
1 John 3:6
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
K Said:
-----------
I realy can not continue to have my faith and what God has told me fall under what ever attack you have ...once again I must say that you should pray before you speak...you really are not as informed as you think you are.
e.s. response
I really am sorry for stirring all of this up. I wish I was more mature at this. :(
K Said:
-----------
Yeshua said we should pray all day and I think you talk more than you ask God what to do...I think you have some resentment to your hebrew upbringing and are a very angry person.
e.s. response:
[NOTE: I haven't responded to this yet.]
K Said:
-----------
judge not les thy be judged....you are not Jesus...I know I saw him...I dot care what you think...I hear angels singing and demons cursing...why don't you pray for the Lord to show you what I have been experiencing since he literally walked in picked me up and carried me out of the world I was in...if you have so much faith pray for truth...pray that you can be shown what i have seen...what I was shown...what i was told...go ahead ask...or will you keep on playing jude as if you have the power to.
e.s. response
[NOTE: I haven't responded to this yet.]
K Said:
-----------
If you were more mature I would know you are being led by the Holy spirit since you are not I know it is an attack from the enemy...see discenment...wow pray to God ask for His help in His son's name He answers..who knew...amazing...that is faith...
e.s. response:
K Said:
-----------
If you were more mature I would know you are being led by the Holy spirit since you are not I know it is an attack from the enemy...see discenment...wow pray to God ask for His help in His son's name He answers..who knew...amazing...that is faith...
Response:
--------------
Scripture teaches me to grow in maturity through obedience, AND through dependence on the Body of Christ, (Ps. 119, and Eph. 4; actually, this is in a lot of places).
Discernment in Scripture is not "a gift". But in actualilty is the verb "to differentiate" or to "judge", which both require wisdom.
Hebrews 5:14
But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to differentiate/judge good and evil.
If anything is a gift, it would be the "senses" that should be TRAINED in order to judge/differentiate.
And this word "senses" in the Old Testament is translated as "Da'at" which is knowledge or knowing. And so it is that our knowledge should be trained so we can differentiate between good and evil. This kind of discernment IS NOT subjective or based on one particular person's feelings.
Like I mentioned before, I wanted to put this conversation online so that other people can see this dialogue and see why there is division over this topic. I have removed your name, so not to offend you.
Here is the link:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/08/defense-for-messianic-judaism.html
ed.2009.08.05.03
There is a strong movement in the Church to uphold the commands of Moses, especially in view of Rabbinical interpretation. I disagree with this. That being said, there are a lot of arguments to support both positions. I am posting the dialogue I had with "K" here to help show both sides of this division in the Church today.
Note: There was a significant portion of this conversation that occured in an instant messaging conversation, but I was not able to save the conversation. Actually, I think it was probably the more substantive part of this conversation, and I regret losing it. I have included a block to describe, (in my words), what was said.
K Said:
-----------
[Personal Info Omitted by e.s.] I have one question though what about when Yeshua said ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth until heaven and earth disappear not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20 I ask this because you say you are messianic and yet you do not believe in the new testament and you say that the Jewish religion is antichrist? I am a little confused on that comment. Yeshua came as a Jew, lived and walked as a Jew, died as a Jew, resurrected as a Jew and will return as a Jew. He wore tsit tsit and celebrated Passover, Shabbat...he kept all Jewish law and did he not say in Matthew 10:38" and anyone who does not take up his cross follow me is not worthy of me." Should we not keep the law as He said to and walk the way He walked. He said He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. He also said in John 4:22 "For Salvation is from the Jews."
Shalom,
K
e.s. response:
Wow. I think you misunderstood.
You said:
-------------
Matthew 5:17-20 I ask this because you say you are messianic and yet you do not believe in the new testament
me:
------------------
I totally believe in the new testament, and the old.
You:
-------------
and you say that the Jewish religion is antichrist? I am a little confused on that comment.
Me:
------------
If you ask a Rabbi if they believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they will say no. If you ask them if they believe that they must trust in Him to be saved from destruction, they will say no.
According to the new testament, this by definition is being anti-christ, against Jesus. Heck, they stand up behind pulpits and say they are anti-christs.
You said:
---------------
Yeshua came as a Jew, lived and walked as a Jew, died as a Jew, resurrected as a Jew and will return as a Jew.
Me:
--------------
Careful where you get your "info". According to Scripture, He was a "Hebrew". Though, if He existed before Abraham, He certainly was not Hebrew, but that is a different topic.
Ask a "Rabbi" what a Jew is, and they will say someone that submits to tradition, halakha and the Rabbis, someone born of a Jewish mother. All of this is a "new" definition of Judaism. Jesus was very "Anti-tradition, anti-intelletualism, anti elitism, etc".
You said:
--------------
He wore tsit tsit and celebrated Passover, Shabbat...he kept all Jewish law
Me:
------------
According to the Bible, Jesus broke their traditions, and their view of what the law meant. He worked on Shabbat, Healed on Shabbat, got food from the crops on Shabbat. He said they did not really understand the law, yet he taught people to break the "Pharasaic and Sadducean" perception of the law.
Also, if Jesus wore a four cornered garment, I am sure he did wear tsit tsit. However, there a verse in Scripture where a woman grabbed the "Hem" of his garment, and people twist that into meaning "Tsit Tsit". In other words, I have no clue if he did or not. Nor does it matter.
The law He followed was HIS law that He established before the foundation of the Earth, and that was shadowed after Him. And He did not teach anyone to break that His law, but He taught them to see through Moses' command that was a shadow to see His eternal commandm (Hebrews). And that law will never pass away.
You said:
--------------------
and did he not say in Matthew 10:38" and anyone who does not take up his cross follow me is not worthy of me." Should we not keep the law as He said to and walk the way He walked.
Response:
-------------------
Jesus said that they neglected the weightier matters of the law to uphold their own tradition. Tell me, what is more important, to feed the hungry every day, or keep kosher every day?
So, in this way, we forsake the commandment of God to fulfill our own tradition. Jesus gave a whole lot of new commandments, that were much more difficult to uphold than Moses'. So, instead of studying those people often get distracted studying tradition, and the intellectualism of men.
Me, I prefer to teach people to walk in the way and example of Jesus, and letting the Holy Spirit do the rest. So, when I see someone dedicated to visiting the prisoners, feeding the hungry, taking care of the orphans, the widows, the afflicted and needy in their distress, then I will have found someone upholding the law of Jesus AND the law of Moses.
You said:
-------------------------
He said He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. He also said in John 4:22 "For Salvation is from the Jews."
Response:
------------------
Unfortunately, you do not understand the law of Christ. If you did, you wouldn't have asked me all this. I know this is offensive, so I will give you evidence.
They asked Jesus what the greatest commandment IN THE LAW was. Jesus said, to love with all of YOUR Mind, Emotions, and Means.
But then, He gave a new commandment. To love as He Loved Us. This is the greatest commandment, not to love with OUR own abilities, but to love with HIS heart, HIS mind, and HIS abundance. Totally different thing.
And then Paul writes, "Bear each other's burdens and thereby fulfill the Law of Christ.
This is the Law that Moses was patterned after. It is a much GREATER law. It always WAS the law. But, it was because of the hardness of Israel's heart that God gave them the law of Moses, when He wanted them to walk into something nobler and greater. This is why the law of Moses was called a schoolmaster... to teach Israel how to learn to become selfless, to love unconditionally, and to obey the Heavenly law, and not the Earthly.
If the Covenant and Law of Moses was Eternal, then certainly another would not have been given.
K Said:
-----------
My thoughts are is that all you see are men's decisions to do what God commanded again...you do not even see that these men are being led by the Holy Spirit to do this....the same reason I attend a messianic judaism synogogue because God told me to...now you can see it how ever you want but I have had visions and dreams and I am very in tune with the Holy Spirit as I think many people who listen to God are....He will pour out His spirit on mankind young men will see visions and old men will dream dreams....If there is a movement to walk as God commanded thousands years ago why do you see it as only traditions...when I hear it as God's voice and word has not changed ...only the people have not been listening...the things that these people do is because it was commanded by God it doesn't matter when...He didn't change His laws...His laws will never change...
e.s. response:
Okay... You said taht you don't understand... and that is partly because I haven't explained it... So don't jump to any conclusions yet. Please. :)
I didn't say Jesus wasn't Hebrew, nor did I say that Jesus didn't observe the law of Moses to a degree. (He obviously deviated from it quite a bit in the view of the Rabbis).
The point I am making is that Modern Judaism is nothing like Judaism during the time of Jesus.
For example, the Talmud and the Mishnah were compiled 300 years AFTER Jesus died.
One of the things written was that they wanted to get people wearing Tzit Tzit again. They noticed that people weren't wearing four cornered garments anymore, so they had no reason to wear the tzit tzit. Four cornered garments went out of vogue a long long long time ago.
So, they created the Talit Katans and the Tallits so that they could observe this commandment. There was no law to wear four cornered garments. So, they created a tradition to wear four cornered garments SO they could fulfill the law of tzit tzit.
I suppose I could give you a bunch of references for this, but then google will feel depressed... so, have a gander yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=history+of+tallit
The Mishnah and the Talmud were compiled after Jesus' death, to help stop people from converting to Christianity. /Some/ of what is in the Mishneh MAY have been taken from ancient texts, but obviously, the majority of it was new, (since it references modern things).
Also... During Jesus' life, Hebrew was a dead language, (like Latin), spoken by scholars only. Common folks spoke Aramaic, Greek, etc.
Again, if we imitate modern Jews, who imitate Pharisees, who Jesus called a Synagogue of Satan, we certainly will not be imitating Jesus.
The imitation of Jesus comes through obeying His commands and doing what He did.
Research for yourself, the History of Hebrew, History of the Talmud, History of the Mishnah, etc.
I would love to know your thoughts.
K Said:
-----------
Well the scripture also says that in the end times that demons will be able to perform miracles that even the elect will be fooled by and I must tell you that the things I saw the first things I was shown told me they were from God but I know they weren't for many reasons. I do know that God allowed me to see these things to bring me to Him and I did have many visions and dreams that were from God. I think if you have doubts in what people say or share with you then you should pray for discernment. The Lord has blessed me with discernment in these days. Which is the only way I determined which visions and dreams are from God and which are from the enemy. I do not think keeping Shabbat and celebrating God's commanded feasts are traditions. He said forever...I believe what God says. Washing hands He said was a tradition....resting in God and remembering the things He did are not traditions they are sacred days to be thankful for what He does. Tsit Tsit is not a tradition it is to remind men constantly of the Lord's commandments since men struggle more than women. The prayer shaw shows are humbleness before God and closes us off from the world and brings and encircles us with abarrier from the world so we can just be intimate with God.The yamaka also shows humilty and reminds us that there is someone above us. To dress modest is to be mindful of others and help our brothers and sisters from stumbling.There are many deep beautiful meanings behind what you call traditions...which perhaps is all you see but you should study the reasons for these things before castinng judgement and then you will see God's reasoning for commaning those things ans the wisdom that came with it. It is really quite beautiful. None of these thinsg did Yeshua command not to be done. In fact He did them we wore prayer shaws and tsit tsit and celebrated God's commanded holidays and He did observe shabbat....whether or not you want to hear this it is true...ask Him...pray about it....He is right next to you.
e.s. response:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I have heard so many people tell me of their visions and dreams.
However, Scripture itself warns me to be wary of those who claim these things.
And Jesus Himself commanded me in Scripture not to submit or adhere to the traditions and intellectualism of men.
So, if people are telling me to, then they are telling me to disobey Jesus. I would rather obey what He specifically said rather than be led by someone else's "experience" that encourages them to teach me to disobey.
And no, I am not talking about you.
e.s response:
was going to send this to you earlier, but I forgot... I took it from:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/05/mat-153-do-not-forsake-commandment-of.html
but here is a part of it:
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.
Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
2 Corinthians 1:9-10
Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He Son whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.
e.s. response:
"The Lord has blessed me with discernment in these days. Which is the only way I determined which visions and dreams are from God and which are from the enemy."
Modern Christianity has exchanged the term "discernment" for the word "Intuition". Like, people believe that "discernment" is some spiritual gift that allows you to figure out things through "feelings" and "intuition".
In Scripture though, the word is actually the verb of "To Judge" according to Word/Law.
So, if your foundation is this, then I obviously cannot persuade you. Though, even the Mormons are as convinced as you are. And, we are commanded not to rely on our own strength, gifts, understanding, dreams, hearts, etc.
Jesus followed the Shabbat, every day. And He observed Shabbat in a different way than the Jews did. In otherwords, the commandment of Jesus is Eternal--forever. But the way in which His commandments are/were observed changed.
For example, the heavenly, eternal command regarding "cleanliness" had nothing to do with what went inside of you, but what came out, and abstaining from fellowship with non-believers, and those that had fallen away. Israel was too stubborn and rebelious to obey this command, so Moses gave them a simpler one. This happened time and again.
For example: Mark 7:19
For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Jesus changed the understanding of this law. There are actually morons out there that say what is in parenthesis is not really what Jesus said. (this is totally untrue, and is in all of the Greek/Aramaic manuscripts).
Then again, they claim that the Apostles wrote in Hebrew too, and that Israelis spoke in Hebrew too.
So, you are going to have to pick your standard for truth. Personally, I believe that the Spirit gave us the Scripture we have today, so I will follow His leading. Also, I do not trust my own heart to "know His voice" the way I should. Sometimes I am deceived.
So, perhaps you are more mature than me, and have some awesome revelation that will supercede Scripture. Or, the Spirit that is leading you is deceiving you and encouraging me to disobey the Law of Jesus and to submit to the Law of Moses. It cannot be the case that we are free from the law if we are led by the Spirit but at the same time still required to submit to the law of Moses and the traditions of Rabbis.
Galatians 5:
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
12Those who desire (Y)to make a good showing in the flesh try to (Z)compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they (AA)will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
But why do Christians teach obedience to the commandments of Moses?
Galatians 6:
13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.
According to Paul, it was because he taught people to depart from the Law of Moses that he was persecuted:
Galatians 5:
11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.
12 I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Paul even implied that the stumbling block of the cross of Christ was that there was no requirement to submit to bondage under the law of Moses.
But what of the Eternal Law? Scripture very clearly says that Moses gave to Israel a "Pattern" of what He saw in Heaven. And, what was in Heaven was Eternal, but His pattern was a shadow intended to let people know that something like it but better existed, and would replace the shadow at some point.
It is the observance of this eternal law that must be observed. Just like Jesus taught us how to, by keeping every day holy, not defiling ourselves with what comes out of us, etc, etc. There are SO many of His commandments. That is why I started writing those articles anyway:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2008/08/matt-123-call-his-name-immanuel.html
Anyhoo. As I said before, I cannot persuade you from Scripture if your standard for faith is warm fuzzy feelings and what these folks have been teaching you. If you come onto my "Rock", then certainly, I can persuade you.
However, I recommend you study it for yourself. The three books to study this A LOT, is Galatians, Hebrews and then Romans. Over and over again, in that order.
Avoid the "Judiazer" translations that try to force translations into Hebrew, etc. These simply are not correct translations. You can however find Interlinear Greek bibles online or so you can look things up for yourself. Try http://www.biblos.com too for interlinear versions, etc.
The point is, if you want to study this out, I would be more than happy to help you find references. I would prefer that your faith be established on what you find in Scripture, rather than my intellectualism.
K Said:
-----------
If you knew me you would know just how much I do trust in the Lord. If you knew me you would never doubt that.
e.s. response
I know me, and I know that I do not Trust Him.
If I did, His promise would come true. "These signs will follow those that trust, (believe), they WILL cast out demons, raise the dead ..." etc, etc.
The love of God is being perfected in me. And so is my faith. So, I try not to rely to heavily on any claim of mine of super spirituality, trustworthiness, love, etc.
Though, I am growing! :)
So, if I don't trust my own intellectalism, or my own understanding, or my own maturity in Him, how would it be reasonable to trust in someone else's--since He commanded me specifically not to do both?
K Said:
-----------
Do you really think using the word morons to refer to your brothers and sister iis a christian way to think...you see maybe you do not believe in discernment because you think everyone besides you is a moron and they could not possibly be hearing the holy spirit or being lead by it... I am only saying that when God says something that He meant it and doesn't lie...do you think He lies? He said not one word from the law would ever change...that God's law is forever...I kind of take the word forever to mean forever because God said it was forever and God doesn't lie ...that is just me...i do not think it is me who is not reading the scriptures...I think I am reading them very clearly ...why do I think that because I pray on it and ask God to tell me...I believe my Lord is faithful, does not lie and always answers prayers asked in His son name....which is why I know when I ask for discernment I am given it...sounds like you have little faith which is why you do not believe in discernment or that God will answer prayers.
e.s. response:
You said:
------------
Do you really think using the word morons to refer to your brothers and sister iis a christian way to think...
Response:
------------
Actually, what I said was:
"There are actually morons out there that say what is in parenthesis is not really what Jesus said. (this is totally untrue, and is in all of the Greek/Aramaic manuscripts)."
And yes, if people intend to twist Scripture around, to take out, to put in, just to promote their doctrines, then yes, Moron would be a nice word. Jesus used other words, like a "Synagogue of Satan". So, in this sense, I am just quoting Jesus, but being more politically correct.
You Said:
--------------
you see maybe you do not believe in discernment because you think everyone besides you is a moron and they could not possibly be hearing the holy spirit or being lead by it...
Response:
-------------
You are making a lot of assumptions about me. I have no clue why you think that I think everyone is a Moron. :(
So, I will retract "Moron", and say that people who distort and twist scripture to promote the tradition and intellectualism of men, are in fact a Synagogue of Satan. These are Jesus' words, not mine. He rebuked these people, so if you don't like it, take it up with Him.
You said:
------------
I am only saying that when God says something that He meant it and doesn't lie...do you think He lies?
Response:
------------
This is a "Strawman" argument. You are implying that I disagree with this statement in order to prove a point. I do agree that these things are true, and I have no idea why you are implying that I don't.
You Said:
------------
He said not one word from the law would ever change...that God's law is forever...I kind of take the word forever to mean forever because God said it was forever and God doesn't lie ...that is just me...
Response:
------------
Actually, the Bible contradicts you:
Hebrews 7:12
For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
This is actually mentioned over and over again, especially in the O.T. There was a LOT of the "law" that was changed. Or rather, a lot of Moses' law that was obsoleted by the true and Eternal Heavenly law, that existed well before Moses.
You Said:
------------
i do not think it is me who is not reading the scriptures...I think I am reading them very clearly ...
Response:
------------
You have never actually made an argument from Scripture, but from your feeling of discernment, and from other's intellectualism. For example, the claim that Jesus' name back then was "Yeshua", despite the fact that Hebrew was a dead language, and the only names recorded for Him are Iesos in Greek, Ishoa in Aramaic, and Immanuel in Hebrew.
You Said:
------------
sounds like you have little faith which is why you do not believe in discernment or that God will answer prayers.
Response:
------------
You are right that I have little faith, but I am growing. I believe that all faith, (trust rather), must be founded on the Word of God. If God hasn't promised it, then there is no point in hoping for it.
I do not put my faith on my "gifting", "my intellecte", or "feelings", but on the Word and the Power of God. This is a commandment, that you are repeatedly asking me to disobey in order to uphold what you believe are valid "traditions".
If I trust in something that God has not promised, then I am sinning. Because, anything not of faith is SIN.
K Said:
-----------
As I have said before you shouls pray on it...but it was just a suggestion from Yeshua...you have free will.
e.s. response:
You Said:
------------------
As I have said before you shouls pray on it...but it was just a suggestion from Yeshua...you have free will.
Response:
-----------------
Are you suggesting that I should pray about whether or not I should obey the command of Jesus and not forsake the commandment of God for the tradition of Men?
Why would I have to pray in order to obey?
Why do you keep trying to convince me to obey the tradition of men, when I am apparently obeying the commandment of Jesus by forsaking the tradition of men?
Do you see how you appear to be contradicting yourself? On one hand, you are telling me to submit to the traditions and commandments of Rabbis, and on the other you are telling me to disobey Jesus, and HIS eternal law which was existent way before Moses.
How do you justify teaching me to disobey Jesus?
e.s. NOTE
Okay, this is where it get's confusing because I lost the text of the Instant Messaging Conversation. Essentially, this is where substance of our disagreement took place. From what I understood, "K" is arguing that God led them to pursue observance of Jewish laws and traditions through visions and dreams. And that it is valid to establish faith upon these things.
I argued that God would never lead someone to disobey the commandments of Jesus, through visions or otherwise. That Joseph Smith had visions, and many people have contradicting visions. And so, we must use the Word of God as a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path, to discern the validity of our dreams and visions and other "spiritual" experiences.
"K" then claimed to have seen Jesus. And that these experiences were so extraordinary that they couldn't possibly be doubted. I was accused of trying to make them doubt their experiences, and I confirmed this.
I argued that we are often led astray when we lean on our own understanding and experiences. And I argued, that there are ways to validate the "truth" of these experiences according to Scripture. After this conversation, I sent the following message ...
e.s. response:
1 John 3:6
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
K Said:
-----------
I realy can not continue to have my faith and what God has told me fall under what ever attack you have ...once again I must say that you should pray before you speak...you really are not as informed as you think you are.
e.s. response
I really am sorry for stirring all of this up. I wish I was more mature at this. :(
K Said:
-----------
Yeshua said we should pray all day and I think you talk more than you ask God what to do...I think you have some resentment to your hebrew upbringing and are a very angry person.
e.s. response:
[NOTE: I haven't responded to this yet.]
K Said:
-----------
judge not les thy be judged....you are not Jesus...I know I saw him...I dot care what you think...I hear angels singing and demons cursing...why don't you pray for the Lord to show you what I have been experiencing since he literally walked in picked me up and carried me out of the world I was in...if you have so much faith pray for truth...pray that you can be shown what i have seen...what I was shown...what i was told...go ahead ask...or will you keep on playing jude as if you have the power to.
e.s. response
[NOTE: I haven't responded to this yet.]
K Said:
-----------
If you were more mature I would know you are being led by the Holy spirit since you are not I know it is an attack from the enemy...see discenment...wow pray to God ask for His help in His son's name He answers..who knew...amazing...that is faith...
e.s. response:
K Said:
-----------
If you were more mature I would know you are being led by the Holy spirit since you are not I know it is an attack from the enemy...see discenment...wow pray to God ask for His help in His son's name He answers..who knew...amazing...that is faith...
Response:
--------------
Scripture teaches me to grow in maturity through obedience, AND through dependence on the Body of Christ, (Ps. 119, and Eph. 4; actually, this is in a lot of places).
Discernment in Scripture is not "a gift". But in actualilty is the verb "to differentiate" or to "judge", which both require wisdom.
Hebrews 5:14
But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to differentiate/judge good and evil.
If anything is a gift, it would be the "senses" that should be TRAINED in order to judge/differentiate.
And this word "senses" in the Old Testament is translated as "Da'at" which is knowledge or knowing. And so it is that our knowledge should be trained so we can differentiate between good and evil. This kind of discernment IS NOT subjective or based on one particular person's feelings.
Like I mentioned before, I wanted to put this conversation online so that other people can see this dialogue and see why there is division over this topic. I have removed your name, so not to offend you.
Here is the link:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/08/defense-for-messianic-judaism.html
Monday, July 20, 2009
1 Cor. 9:9 - Provide for the Laborer
cmp.2009.07.20
ed.2009.08.08.01
Reposted this content under a different name and URL:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/08/mat-2819-go.html
ed.2009.08.08.01
Reposted this content under a different name and URL:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/08/mat-2819-go.html
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Intimate Acountability
cmp.2009.06.17
// Written to Carolyn Curtis James in response to:
// http://www.whitbyforum.com/2009/05/happy-ezer-day.html
Carolyn,
I had a thought about your use of "Ezer" from Scripture. I notice that you haven't really referenced to the context of this term stated in Genesis, or the MASSIVE qualifier that is left out of most modern translations, (or it is simply mistranslated as "suitable").
Gen 2:18
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לֹא־טֹוב הֱיֹות הָאָדָם לְבַדֹּו אֶעֱשֶׂהּ־לֹּו עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּו׃
There are two very big implications of the qualification following "Ezer": "Kenegdo". This literally translates as: "as before him".
For example, in 2 Sam 22:23, it states "All his laws are before me; I have not turned away ...
The same Hebrew word is used, (Neged).
In the context of Gen 2, God very clearly gave a commandment to Adam, and IMMEDIATELY afterward, said it was not right for Adam to be alone. Why?
Doesn't the context support the idea that woman was created to help keep Adam accountable to the command that God had given to him?
Isn't this exactly why Adam pointed to Eve and said, "The woman that you gave me, she ...".
If a woman is truly a "helper before" man, to keep them accountable, and to remind them of the command of God for his life, then why is this rarely taught in Christianity today?
Is it the case that women are too scared to be perceived as "naggy"? Is it because men truly do not want this kind of accountability? Is it because women do not really want their husbands to pursue the commandment of God?
If what I am arguing is true, and this IS the reason that God created woman, (as stated in this passage), then are women off the mark in their role in a marriage if they do not understand this simple concept that God determined that man NEEDED an intimate source of accountability?
I pray that God blesses you with His favor and peace as you trust in Him.
In Jesus,
e.s.
// Written to Carolyn Curtis James in response to:
// http://www.whitbyforum.com/2009/05/happy-ezer-day.html
Carolyn,
I had a thought about your use of "Ezer" from Scripture. I notice that you haven't really referenced to the context of this term stated in Genesis, or the MASSIVE qualifier that is left out of most modern translations, (or it is simply mistranslated as "suitable").
Gen 2:18
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לֹא־טֹוב הֱיֹות הָאָדָם לְבַדֹּו אֶעֱשֶׂהּ־לֹּו עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּו׃
There are two very big implications of the qualification following "Ezer": "Kenegdo". This literally translates as: "as before him".
For example, in 2 Sam 22:23, it states "All his laws are before me; I have not turned away ...
The same Hebrew word is used, (Neged).
In the context of Gen 2, God very clearly gave a commandment to Adam, and IMMEDIATELY afterward, said it was not right for Adam to be alone. Why?
Doesn't the context support the idea that woman was created to help keep Adam accountable to the command that God had given to him?
Isn't this exactly why Adam pointed to Eve and said, "The woman that you gave me, she ...".
If a woman is truly a "helper before" man, to keep them accountable, and to remind them of the command of God for his life, then why is this rarely taught in Christianity today?
Is it the case that women are too scared to be perceived as "naggy"? Is it because men truly do not want this kind of accountability? Is it because women do not really want their husbands to pursue the commandment of God?
If what I am arguing is true, and this IS the reason that God created woman, (as stated in this passage), then are women off the mark in their role in a marriage if they do not understand this simple concept that God determined that man NEEDED an intimate source of accountability?
I pray that God blesses you with His favor and peace as you trust in Him.
In Jesus,
e.s.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Mat. 15:3 - Do not Forsake the Commandment of God for the Tradition of Men
cmp.2009.05.02
ed.2009.07.29.01 (Edited some, smoothed out the contrary parts a tad.)
To: William Lane Craig,
Reasonable Faith
P.O. Box 72888
Marietta, Georgia 30007
Office: 404.348.6301
Organization:
1. Question
3. Traditionalism and Creation
2. Traditionalism and Evolution
4. Traditionalism and Trinity
5. Conclusion
Question
Very frequently, when Christians debate with unbelievers, its always noticeable that the Christians will make appeals to the authority of tradition. And, this trend, where we incorporate tradition into doctrine, seems to contribute a whole lot of confusion regarding what it is we actually believe in.
So, my question simply is, "Why do we hold onto untenable traditional beliefs when Scripture does not support them"?
Please know that I am not asserting that what I have stated below is the absolute "truth" regarding Creation, Evolution or even the Trinity doctrine; I simply do not know. On the other hand, these examples are intended to illustrate my argument: "if the strongholds of traditionalism are removed, then we find that Scripture and reason really do not seem to contradict."
So my question could also be considered to be: "Why do we continue to hold onto traditionalism and consider it to have so much authority?"
Do we do this just so we can fill in our gaps of knowledge? Maybe we hold onto traditional beliefs just so we can boast in the confidence of knowing, even if that knowledge isn't the truth.
Perhaps a better question is: "how do we identify what part of our faith is founded on traditionalism, and how do we know what is established on what God actually said?"
Traditionalism and Creation
It is commonly understood that pretty much every definition of the word "day" either: considers Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun, or we believe that the term is sometimes symbolic.
Two examples of definitions that are relative to the Sun include: the amount of time for the Earth to rotate around its axis in view of the Sun; and, the Biblical definition that a "day" is the combination of evening and morning.
Both of these definitions rely on the Sun, which didn't really seem to be given as a sign or even created, until the fourth day. These "days" were simply proclaimed to be so. As with all other passages of Scripture, we can infer if it is metaphorical or literal by its context. And, since the days in Genesis 1 evidently do not correspond to a literal 24 hour rotation on its axis in view of the Sun, then it is reasonable to accept that this passage is metaphorical.
We have no Biblical evidence to say that these days consisted of 24 hours, let alone a Biblical "day" which is a combination of evening and morning, (still relative to the Sun). There are some who are so adamant about notion of a 24 hour day that they claim that God was the light that was created on the first day and in this He ensured our notion of a 24 hour day. This is problematic for two obvious reasons: first, the light was created, if God was this light, how can He create Himself? Second, why would God make such a massive effort to comply to our notion of 24 hours?
But despite the obvious ambiguity in the Creation Story, we hold to the position that the Earth was created in six, twenty-four hour periods in order to uphold the tradition of men, (despite the fact that the Bible says no such thing, and is clearly vague on the issue).
Traditionalism and Evolution
Similarly, we presume to know how God made man. Certainly, both the Bible and evolutionists agree on the fact that Man was evidentially created from the dust of the Earth. Even though the theory of evolution has many flaws, it is even more problematic for a Christian to argue in favor of certain beliefs based on tradition, and not Scripture.
To be specific, Christians tend to leave Scripture behind when they allude to the commonly held notion that God stepped out of Heaven, walked along the streams, made a bunch of clay, pulled out His Potter's Wheel, peddaled it around, molded Adam, and then poked two holes making Adam's nostrils. Apparently after this, God breathed into Adam, and then some "Star Trekkian" glow appeared which turned Adam into a living and breathing Man. The truth is that Scripture says that God "breathed" and that God "formed", nothing more.
Again, Scripture does not say how God did either of these two things. Did Jesus do the breathing in Human form since God is Spirit and cannot breathe? Did God form Adam through a literal pottery process or did God use some other means to form Adam like Isaiah speaks of the forming process in the womb, and also he speaks of the forming of a nation? Again, it is reasonable to accept that Moses was either being terribly concise, or at least metaphorical.
Scripture does go as far as to use the connotation of a potter in order to describe that nature of God. This connotation very effectively illustrates God's care, mastery, materials, and several other ideas. However, the Bible does not offer any more details than this.
Scripture frequently omits details, and somehow we feel justified filling in those gaps and we declare with confidence how God did such a complex thing--usually holding to a traditional belief. There are details that are not mentioned in the Creation Story that are mentioned in other places in Scripture, specifically the dialog that God had with Wisdom, and the Christian claim that God created everything with the help of Jesus. There are many more details scattered throughout Scripture that effectively serve to remind us that the Creation Story is a very concise summary, (which seems more than reasonable).
How can anyone presume to have complete knowledge about how God did or did not do something especially in light of the fact that God did not tell us?
Traditionalism and Trinity
There are also traditional positions that we cite as Christians in order to indoctrinate others. For example, the Christian Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, the anointed King of God, the Lord of Lords, and the Son of David.
Scripture also makes it clear that "God" is not the name of the Most High. "God" is just what the Most High IS. It is His nature. The Most High is God, just like I am Human. If we have Children, the infants are Human. If the Most High has a child, what nature is that child? Jesus said whatever is born of the Spirit is Spirit. It would make sense that any child of the Most High would share His nature, and this is even written in Psalms:
Pslams 82:6-7
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
Of course, theologians have a hard time reconciling this passage, and for no reason based on Scripture, they claim that God was being "sarcastic". Really? How in the world does this context show that God was being sarcastic? Before this passage, God was telling Israel that they should take care of the needy and afflicted; after this passage God judges that they will fall like everyone else. Was God being sarcastic about this too?
Isn't it justified to say that if a father has a child, then that child carries the nature of its father? If its father was Human, then it is Human. If its Father is God, then isn't it Spirit? Doesn't Jesus have the right to claim the nature of His Father? Even Jesus confirmed this when he said:
John 3:6-7
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
The point is, we are told to believe in the traditional belief that: "The mystery of the godhead is too great to understand". This would seem somewhat reasonable except for this fact: the Bible explicitly states the opposite, that the divine nature of God is understood and clearly seen:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Wouldn't those who want to confess Jesus before men be justified to simply call Him the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings? Isn't this Biblical? Isn't it justified to call Him the Son of Adam and the Son of the Father? Isn't it justified to say that "God" is not the name of the "Most High". Isn't it justified to say that Jesus submitted to His Father, even to death? Isn't it justified to say that Jesus is the image of the Father, since the Father has no image? Isn't it justified to say that if you have seen Jesus, then you have seen the Father, because Jesus is the image of His Father since His Father is Spirit?
But, how can we claim it is justified to add to the covenant of salvation, "You must believe that Jesus IS the Most High and the Father, in order to be saved"? Isn't it more reasonable for believers NOT to put their faith in these traditions since they are not stated directly in Scripture?
Conclusion
Why isn't it considered reasonable faith to just believe what the Bible says without falling into traditionalism and intellectualism?
Why do we require others to put their faith in our intellectual "conclusions" and "logical inferrences"?
If we know that "trust", (what some people call faith) comes from the hearing of God's promises, (just like Abraham and Sarah), and we know that it is only by trusting in the Words of God that we have any opportunity to find favor, then why do we insist on trusting in traditionalism and intellectualism instead?
If "true faith" is trusting in the promises and words of God, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that it really is sinful to trust and depend on anything other than what God has promised and commanded?
Romans 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Isn't it reasonable to not hold dogmatically to a belief if Scripture does not directly state that belief? Wouldn't a believer be justified in not putting their faith on inference and argument by simply saying to God:
"Because you commanded me not to, I did not put trust in my own understanding, and I did not put my trust in men."
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.
Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
2 Corinthians 1:9-10
Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He Son whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.
ed.2009.07.29.01 (Edited some, smoothed out the contrary parts a tad.)
To: William Lane Craig,
Reasonable Faith
P.O. Box 72888
Marietta, Georgia 30007
Office: 404.348.6301
Organization:
1. Question
3. Traditionalism and Creation
2. Traditionalism and Evolution
4. Traditionalism and Trinity
5. Conclusion
Question
Very frequently, when Christians debate with unbelievers, its always noticeable that the Christians will make appeals to the authority of tradition. And, this trend, where we incorporate tradition into doctrine, seems to contribute a whole lot of confusion regarding what it is we actually believe in.
So, my question simply is, "Why do we hold onto untenable traditional beliefs when Scripture does not support them"?
Please know that I am not asserting that what I have stated below is the absolute "truth" regarding Creation, Evolution or even the Trinity doctrine; I simply do not know. On the other hand, these examples are intended to illustrate my argument: "if the strongholds of traditionalism are removed, then we find that Scripture and reason really do not seem to contradict."
So my question could also be considered to be: "Why do we continue to hold onto traditionalism and consider it to have so much authority?"
Do we do this just so we can fill in our gaps of knowledge? Maybe we hold onto traditional beliefs just so we can boast in the confidence of knowing, even if that knowledge isn't the truth.
Perhaps a better question is: "how do we identify what part of our faith is founded on traditionalism, and how do we know what is established on what God actually said?"
Traditionalism and Creation
It is commonly understood that pretty much every definition of the word "day" either: considers Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun, or we believe that the term is sometimes symbolic.
Two examples of definitions that are relative to the Sun include: the amount of time for the Earth to rotate around its axis in view of the Sun; and, the Biblical definition that a "day" is the combination of evening and morning.
Both of these definitions rely on the Sun, which didn't really seem to be given as a sign or even created, until the fourth day. These "days" were simply proclaimed to be so. As with all other passages of Scripture, we can infer if it is metaphorical or literal by its context. And, since the days in Genesis 1 evidently do not correspond to a literal 24 hour rotation on its axis in view of the Sun, then it is reasonable to accept that this passage is metaphorical.
We have no Biblical evidence to say that these days consisted of 24 hours, let alone a Biblical "day" which is a combination of evening and morning, (still relative to the Sun). There are some who are so adamant about notion of a 24 hour day that they claim that God was the light that was created on the first day and in this He ensured our notion of a 24 hour day. This is problematic for two obvious reasons: first, the light was created, if God was this light, how can He create Himself? Second, why would God make such a massive effort to comply to our notion of 24 hours?
But despite the obvious ambiguity in the Creation Story, we hold to the position that the Earth was created in six, twenty-four hour periods in order to uphold the tradition of men, (despite the fact that the Bible says no such thing, and is clearly vague on the issue).
Traditionalism and Evolution
Similarly, we presume to know how God made man. Certainly, both the Bible and evolutionists agree on the fact that Man was evidentially created from the dust of the Earth. Even though the theory of evolution has many flaws, it is even more problematic for a Christian to argue in favor of certain beliefs based on tradition, and not Scripture.
To be specific, Christians tend to leave Scripture behind when they allude to the commonly held notion that God stepped out of Heaven, walked along the streams, made a bunch of clay, pulled out His Potter's Wheel, peddaled it around, molded Adam, and then poked two holes making Adam's nostrils. Apparently after this, God breathed into Adam, and then some "Star Trekkian" glow appeared which turned Adam into a living and breathing Man. The truth is that Scripture says that God "breathed" and that God "formed", nothing more.
Again, Scripture does not say how God did either of these two things. Did Jesus do the breathing in Human form since God is Spirit and cannot breathe? Did God form Adam through a literal pottery process or did God use some other means to form Adam like Isaiah speaks of the forming process in the womb, and also he speaks of the forming of a nation? Again, it is reasonable to accept that Moses was either being terribly concise, or at least metaphorical.
Scripture does go as far as to use the connotation of a potter in order to describe that nature of God. This connotation very effectively illustrates God's care, mastery, materials, and several other ideas. However, the Bible does not offer any more details than this.
Scripture frequently omits details, and somehow we feel justified filling in those gaps and we declare with confidence how God did such a complex thing--usually holding to a traditional belief. There are details that are not mentioned in the Creation Story that are mentioned in other places in Scripture, specifically the dialog that God had with Wisdom, and the Christian claim that God created everything with the help of Jesus. There are many more details scattered throughout Scripture that effectively serve to remind us that the Creation Story is a very concise summary, (which seems more than reasonable).
How can anyone presume to have complete knowledge about how God did or did not do something especially in light of the fact that God did not tell us?
Traditionalism and Trinity
There are also traditional positions that we cite as Christians in order to indoctrinate others. For example, the Christian Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, the anointed King of God, the Lord of Lords, and the Son of David.
Scripture also makes it clear that "God" is not the name of the Most High. "God" is just what the Most High IS. It is His nature. The Most High is God, just like I am Human. If we have Children, the infants are Human. If the Most High has a child, what nature is that child? Jesus said whatever is born of the Spirit is Spirit. It would make sense that any child of the Most High would share His nature, and this is even written in Psalms:
Pslams 82:6-7
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
Of course, theologians have a hard time reconciling this passage, and for no reason based on Scripture, they claim that God was being "sarcastic". Really? How in the world does this context show that God was being sarcastic? Before this passage, God was telling Israel that they should take care of the needy and afflicted; after this passage God judges that they will fall like everyone else. Was God being sarcastic about this too?
Isn't it justified to say that if a father has a child, then that child carries the nature of its father? If its father was Human, then it is Human. If its Father is God, then isn't it Spirit? Doesn't Jesus have the right to claim the nature of His Father? Even Jesus confirmed this when he said:
John 3:6-7
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
The point is, we are told to believe in the traditional belief that: "The mystery of the godhead is too great to understand". This would seem somewhat reasonable except for this fact: the Bible explicitly states the opposite, that the divine nature of God is understood and clearly seen:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Wouldn't those who want to confess Jesus before men be justified to simply call Him the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings? Isn't this Biblical? Isn't it justified to call Him the Son of Adam and the Son of the Father? Isn't it justified to say that "God" is not the name of the "Most High". Isn't it justified to say that Jesus submitted to His Father, even to death? Isn't it justified to say that Jesus is the image of the Father, since the Father has no image? Isn't it justified to say that if you have seen Jesus, then you have seen the Father, because Jesus is the image of His Father since His Father is Spirit?
But, how can we claim it is justified to add to the covenant of salvation, "You must believe that Jesus IS the Most High and the Father, in order to be saved"? Isn't it more reasonable for believers NOT to put their faith in these traditions since they are not stated directly in Scripture?
Conclusion
Why isn't it considered reasonable faith to just believe what the Bible says without falling into traditionalism and intellectualism?
Why do we require others to put their faith in our intellectual "conclusions" and "logical inferrences"?
If we know that "trust", (what some people call faith) comes from the hearing of God's promises, (just like Abraham and Sarah), and we know that it is only by trusting in the Words of God that we have any opportunity to find favor, then why do we insist on trusting in traditionalism and intellectualism instead?
If "true faith" is trusting in the promises and words of God, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that it really is sinful to trust and depend on anything other than what God has promised and commanded?
Romans 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Isn't it reasonable to not hold dogmatically to a belief if Scripture does not directly state that belief? Wouldn't a believer be justified in not putting their faith on inference and argument by simply saying to God:
"Because you commanded me not to, I did not put trust in my own understanding, and I did not put my trust in men."
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.
Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
2 Corinthians 1:9-10
Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He Son whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Matt. 10:8 - Freely Give
cmp.2007.03.07
ed.2008.08.30.11 (Public Review)
Pastor,
Greetings in the name of Jesus! I heard that there were some dissensions about the very extravagant gift you had recently received. Jesus gave very specific commandments regarding stewardship and giving, and I believe that we must remind the Church, even the leadership, that we have freely been given all things. And, as Jesus commanded, "Freely you received, freely give."
It is our willingness to accept that all good things come from God that brings us to acknowledge Him. And in our praise, God finds a dwelling place. It is our determination to be faithful and accountable with every gift that God has given us that lets us know that we should accept these gifts. Otherwise, if we are not faithful, we are more than guilty of those accusations that we are full of greed and selfishness.
It is written that seed is given to the sower. A sower by definition is someone who takes seed that they have and buries it into the ground. And through its death, new life is given. And we also understand that all seed is given to us to be planted.
It is also written that the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. Even when God gives us more seed to be faithful with, we are not excused from being accountable for what He has given us before. Our responsibilities grow as we grow in favor. If those in the Kingdom are called to plant seed, the Word of God, then everything within our means is simply a tool for that purpose.
To clarify, Scripture speaks clearly concerning wealth and prosperity. Consider prosperity as the ability to make an increase with what we are given and alternatively, wealth as the act of storing that increase. It is certain that His desire for us is to prosper. So in this light, we can understand why Jesus spoke against those who stored up their wealth, but not against prosperity. "Bear one another's burdens, and in this, fulfill the law of Christ."
We will be held accountable for those gifts that we were given and their potential for increase. We have to let those things die to us by releasing our authority over them and placing them under the authority of God. Now, when I say that we must let those things die to us, I am referring to a common truth. When a man dies to the law, the law no longer has authority over him. If we have died to the law, the law has no right to reclaim us or enforce its constraints.
In the same way, if we let something die to us, and if we truly make an offering to God, we surrender our right to take it back or impose constraints on our offering. A sacrifice in every sense of the word implies that our offering literally leaves our possession and given to another.
What do we do then if we offer up our gifts and they return again? We believe that God is honoring His Word that just as our bread is cast upon the water, it has returned to us. Therefore, we continue in obedience and sow that seed again and again knowing that what He has given will always be ours. And, our faith in His Word is evidenced by us freely giving it away over and over.
We so often justify our income, our possessions, gifts and even our lives by claiming that a workman is worthy of his hire. If we negotiate a wage, then we are paid in obligation. Those who are paid through a wage have received their reward. If we are given more above that wage, then what we receive is an act of favor—grace. Therefore, as gifts given in favor there is no possible way to justify why we received them; only when there is a law, an agreement, can we justify why we should be given a wage. Otherwise, our only explanation is favor.
And so, we give again and again knowing that whatever gift that we give for God will be returned to us to give yet again. And in this, our actions are evidence that we truly believe that investments in this life, and rewards in this life, cannot compare to what we believe are in store for those who love God and are called according to Hs purpose. The gifts of God are without repentance, so they will always be ours to give. But, they will never be ours to keep to ourselves. Even concerning the rewards to come, we will lay them down at His feet.
I pray that you grow you favor and peace in God through Christ Jesus, amen.
ed.2008.08.30.11 (Public Review)
Pastor,
Greetings in the name of Jesus! I heard that there were some dissensions about the very extravagant gift you had recently received. Jesus gave very specific commandments regarding stewardship and giving, and I believe that we must remind the Church, even the leadership, that we have freely been given all things. And, as Jesus commanded, "Freely you received, freely give."
It is our willingness to accept that all good things come from God that brings us to acknowledge Him. And in our praise, God finds a dwelling place. It is our determination to be faithful and accountable with every gift that God has given us that lets us know that we should accept these gifts. Otherwise, if we are not faithful, we are more than guilty of those accusations that we are full of greed and selfishness.
It is written that seed is given to the sower. A sower by definition is someone who takes seed that they have and buries it into the ground. And through its death, new life is given. And we also understand that all seed is given to us to be planted.
It is also written that the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. Even when God gives us more seed to be faithful with, we are not excused from being accountable for what He has given us before. Our responsibilities grow as we grow in favor. If those in the Kingdom are called to plant seed, the Word of God, then everything within our means is simply a tool for that purpose.
To clarify, Scripture speaks clearly concerning wealth and prosperity. Consider prosperity as the ability to make an increase with what we are given and alternatively, wealth as the act of storing that increase. It is certain that His desire for us is to prosper. So in this light, we can understand why Jesus spoke against those who stored up their wealth, but not against prosperity. "Bear one another's burdens, and in this, fulfill the law of Christ."
We will be held accountable for those gifts that we were given and their potential for increase. We have to let those things die to us by releasing our authority over them and placing them under the authority of God. Now, when I say that we must let those things die to us, I am referring to a common truth. When a man dies to the law, the law no longer has authority over him. If we have died to the law, the law has no right to reclaim us or enforce its constraints.
In the same way, if we let something die to us, and if we truly make an offering to God, we surrender our right to take it back or impose constraints on our offering. A sacrifice in every sense of the word implies that our offering literally leaves our possession and given to another.
What do we do then if we offer up our gifts and they return again? We believe that God is honoring His Word that just as our bread is cast upon the water, it has returned to us. Therefore, we continue in obedience and sow that seed again and again knowing that what He has given will always be ours. And, our faith in His Word is evidenced by us freely giving it away over and over.
We so often justify our income, our possessions, gifts and even our lives by claiming that a workman is worthy of his hire. If we negotiate a wage, then we are paid in obligation. Those who are paid through a wage have received their reward. If we are given more above that wage, then what we receive is an act of favor—grace. Therefore, as gifts given in favor there is no possible way to justify why we received them; only when there is a law, an agreement, can we justify why we should be given a wage. Otherwise, our only explanation is favor.
And so, we give again and again knowing that whatever gift that we give for God will be returned to us to give yet again. And in this, our actions are evidence that we truly believe that investments in this life, and rewards in this life, cannot compare to what we believe are in store for those who love God and are called according to Hs purpose. The gifts of God are without repentance, so they will always be ours to give. But, they will never be ours to keep to ourselves. Even concerning the rewards to come, we will lay them down at His feet.
I pray that you grow you favor and peace in God through Christ Jesus, amen.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Matt. 1:23 - Call His Name Immanuel
cmp.2008.08.04
ed.2008.08.08.011 (Public Draft II)
Note: You will need Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic fonts to view this article.
Organization
1. The Testimony
2. The Dilemma
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
8. Conclusion
1. The Testimony
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
2. The Dilemma
All over the world, people refer to the name of Jesus in many different ways.
However, many Messianic Jewish teachers are claiming that it is more correct and "spiritual" to call Jesus, "Yeshua", because Jesus was Jewish, and "Yeshua" is the Hebrew form of the English name, "Jesus". They also argue that when Jesus walked the streets of Israel, He was commonly known as "Yeshua".
So the question is, what are we really supposed to call "Jesus"?
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
In the Old Testament, (1 Chron. 24:11), there was a Priest named "Jeshua", ("Yeshua", יֵשׁוּעַ in Hebrew which is argued to be a shortened form of "Joshua", יְהֹושֻׁע). Now, when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the name "Jeshua" was consistently translated as "Jesus", (Iesous, Ἰησοῦς in Greek).
It is reasonable to believe that "Yeshua" in Hebrew is the etymological source of the Greek name "Iesous", (which is where we get the name "Jesus").
However, if the translators of the Old Testament and the Apostles had intended to preserve original pronunciations, then the Greek form of "Yeshua" may have been more phonetically accurate and look more like "Ἰησῦα", rather than "Ἰησοῦς".
Therefore, it is reasonable to accept that any concern over the proper phonetic pronunciation of the name, "Jesus" was most probably not that big of an issue for the Jewish scholars in the second and third centuries B.C.
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
When we consider Aramaic New Testament manuscripts, we find that the Aramaic version of Jesus' name is a direct letter to letter transliteration from Hebrew into Aramaic. But, the Aramaic name in practice was most probably pronounced differently from Ancient Hebrew, "Isho'", (with a hard gutteral stop at the end), instead of "Yeshua".
In addition, all of the Greek and Aramaic texts of the New Testament make every effort to make sure that "Immanuel" is preserved phonetically as "Ἐμμανουήλ" and "ܥܡܢܘܐܝܠ". Why would the Apostles phonetically preserve the Hebrew name "Immanuel", but never preserve the phonetic pronunciation of "Yeshua"?
The only reasonable conclusion is that the preservation of the prophetic name "Immanuel" was far more important to the Apostolic Church than any of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic expressions of the name, "Jesus".
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
Which form of Hebrew should we transliterate Jesus' name into? Early Mosaic Hebrew? Pre/Post Babylonian? Mishnaic Hebrew? Modern Hebrew?
If we are trying to determine the most accurate pronunciation of Jesus' name during the age He lived in, it would be more accurate to consult Mishnaic Hebrew instead of Post Babylonian Hebrew because this was the form of Hebrew being used by the religious scholars of that period.
Although I cannot make a sound argument that the "Jesus" referred to in the Talmud actually refers to "Jesus the Nazarene", what we can at the very least determine is how they wrote this very commonly used name as, "Yeshu", ("ישו", A reference can be found in Sanhedrin 107b as well as many other places). So, we can see a change of this name over time, from Yehoshua, to Yeshua, to Yeshu. Even in Israel today, it is a very common practice to shorten Biblical Hebrew names.
So, it is evident that the "Hebrew" form of Jesus' name during and after His life, "Yeshu", is confirmed in both the Aramaic and Greek languages. "Yeshu" in Hebrew, "Isho'" in Aramaic, and "Iesous" in Greek. The third syllable in every ancient representation of Jesus' name is consistently dropped. This is further evidence that Jesus was not referred to as "Yeshua" in ancient times.
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
An obvious resolution to this issue could be found by deferring to the Apostles since they were given authority over the Church; specifically, they were given twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, which Gentile believers are grafted into.
The Apostles clearly called Jesus, "Ἰησοῦς" in Greek. We can make this conclusion because of Luke's writings and Paul's letters to the Greeks, such as his letter to the Romans. It is certainly not reasonable to believe that Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Greeks in Aramaic, and certainly not in ancient Biblical Hebrew.
Romans 1:4-6 (NASB)
... Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ ...
And, if the Apostles wrote in Aramaic (the dialect of the Hebrews, "τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ", Acts 26:14), then it is reasonable to believe that the Apostles also called Jesus, "ܝܫܘܥ", or "Isho'" in Aramaic.
If Paul introduced himself as "Paul", would we consider it reasonable to disrespect him and call him by his Hebrew name, "Sha'ul"? If the Apostles of Jesus Christ were given authority to establish the Church, and they consistently introduced Jesus to the nations as "Iesous" and "Isho'", could it be considered reasonable to claim that people all over the world called Jesus, "Yeshua" instead?
Since the Apostles used Aramaic and Greek names for Jesus, then it is reasonable for us to express the name of Jesus in different dialects as well. Also, because Hebrew was not widely known in Israel except among scholars, and because there are no ancient Hebrew texts that refer to Jesus as "Yeshua", it is reasonable to conclude that few people, if any, ever referred to Jesus as "Yeshua" as people do today 2000 years later.
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Now beyond doubt, this is most arguably the Hebrew name of Jesus. God said it and Gabriel confirmed it. And even both Matthew the Apostle, and Isaiah the Prophet wrote it.
What is really awesome about this is that even though this is not an "Imperative Command", and Scripture does not directly command anyone to call Jesus "Immanuel", (עִמָּנוּ אֵל), it is a "Testimony" of God, something that God has witnessed of the future. Therefore, if God said that Jesus' Hebrew name was Immanuel, we can assume that we know what Jesus' real Hebrew name was.
It was very common for people to have different names in different languages: Peter's name was Simon in Hebrew, Cephas in Aramaic, and Petros in Greek. The list goes on. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus had an Aramaic name, "Isho'", a Greek name, "Iesous", and a Hebrew name, "Immanuel".
8. Conclusion
It is clear that the Apostles accepted and even encouraged the transliteration of the name of Jesus into other languages.
However, claiming that the Apostles, the people of Israel, or the rest of the world knew of Jesus as "Yeshua" in Hebrew during the period of the Apostolic Church is not supported at all historically.
And, if the Apostles did not consider proclaiming the name of Jesus in Hebrew as necessary, then it is well beyond the intellectualism of anyone today to suggest that the Church should use this name outside of Hebrew speaking communities.
Finally, because we know that faith must be preceded by what God has said and not our own intellectualism, it is not reasonable to ask others to simply believe that Jesus was originally called "Yeshua" in Hebrew. Rather, we can say with certainty that the Apostles, the Apostolic Church, and Scripture, all spoke of Jesus as, "Immanuel", "Isho'", and "Iesous".
ed.2008.08.08.011 (Public Draft II)
Note: You will need Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic fonts to view this article.
Organization
1. The Testimony
2. The Dilemma
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
8. Conclusion
1. The Testimony
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
2. The Dilemma
All over the world, people refer to the name of Jesus in many different ways.
However, many Messianic Jewish teachers are claiming that it is more correct and "spiritual" to call Jesus, "Yeshua", because Jesus was Jewish, and "Yeshua" is the Hebrew form of the English name, "Jesus". They also argue that when Jesus walked the streets of Israel, He was commonly known as "Yeshua".
So the question is, what are we really supposed to call "Jesus"?
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
In the Old Testament, (1 Chron. 24:11), there was a Priest named "Jeshua", ("Yeshua", יֵשׁוּעַ in Hebrew which is argued to be a shortened form of "Joshua", יְהֹושֻׁע). Now, when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the name "Jeshua" was consistently translated as "Jesus", (Iesous, Ἰησοῦς in Greek).
It is reasonable to believe that "Yeshua" in Hebrew is the etymological source of the Greek name "Iesous", (which is where we get the name "Jesus").
However, if the translators of the Old Testament and the Apostles had intended to preserve original pronunciations, then the Greek form of "Yeshua" may have been more phonetically accurate and look more like "Ἰησῦα", rather than "Ἰησοῦς".
Therefore, it is reasonable to accept that any concern over the proper phonetic pronunciation of the name, "Jesus" was most probably not that big of an issue for the Jewish scholars in the second and third centuries B.C.
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
When we consider Aramaic New Testament manuscripts, we find that the Aramaic version of Jesus' name is a direct letter to letter transliteration from Hebrew into Aramaic. But, the Aramaic name in practice was most probably pronounced differently from Ancient Hebrew, "Isho'", (with a hard gutteral stop at the end), instead of "Yeshua".
In addition, all of the Greek and Aramaic texts of the New Testament make every effort to make sure that "Immanuel" is preserved phonetically as "Ἐμμανουήλ" and "ܥܡܢܘܐܝܠ". Why would the Apostles phonetically preserve the Hebrew name "Immanuel", but never preserve the phonetic pronunciation of "Yeshua"?
The only reasonable conclusion is that the preservation of the prophetic name "Immanuel" was far more important to the Apostolic Church than any of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic expressions of the name, "Jesus".
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
Which form of Hebrew should we transliterate Jesus' name into? Early Mosaic Hebrew? Pre/Post Babylonian? Mishnaic Hebrew? Modern Hebrew?
If we are trying to determine the most accurate pronunciation of Jesus' name during the age He lived in, it would be more accurate to consult Mishnaic Hebrew instead of Post Babylonian Hebrew because this was the form of Hebrew being used by the religious scholars of that period.
Although I cannot make a sound argument that the "Jesus" referred to in the Talmud actually refers to "Jesus the Nazarene", what we can at the very least determine is how they wrote this very commonly used name as, "Yeshu", ("ישו", A reference can be found in Sanhedrin 107b as well as many other places). So, we can see a change of this name over time, from Yehoshua, to Yeshua, to Yeshu. Even in Israel today, it is a very common practice to shorten Biblical Hebrew names.
So, it is evident that the "Hebrew" form of Jesus' name during and after His life, "Yeshu", is confirmed in both the Aramaic and Greek languages. "Yeshu" in Hebrew, "Isho'" in Aramaic, and "Iesous" in Greek. The third syllable in every ancient representation of Jesus' name is consistently dropped. This is further evidence that Jesus was not referred to as "Yeshua" in ancient times.
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
An obvious resolution to this issue could be found by deferring to the Apostles since they were given authority over the Church; specifically, they were given twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, which Gentile believers are grafted into.
The Apostles clearly called Jesus, "Ἰησοῦς" in Greek. We can make this conclusion because of Luke's writings and Paul's letters to the Greeks, such as his letter to the Romans. It is certainly not reasonable to believe that Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Greeks in Aramaic, and certainly not in ancient Biblical Hebrew.
Romans 1:4-6 (NASB)
... Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ ...
And, if the Apostles wrote in Aramaic (the dialect of the Hebrews, "τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ", Acts 26:14), then it is reasonable to believe that the Apostles also called Jesus, "ܝܫܘܥ", or "Isho'" in Aramaic.
If Paul introduced himself as "Paul", would we consider it reasonable to disrespect him and call him by his Hebrew name, "Sha'ul"? If the Apostles of Jesus Christ were given authority to establish the Church, and they consistently introduced Jesus to the nations as "Iesous" and "Isho'", could it be considered reasonable to claim that people all over the world called Jesus, "Yeshua" instead?
Since the Apostles used Aramaic and Greek names for Jesus, then it is reasonable for us to express the name of Jesus in different dialects as well. Also, because Hebrew was not widely known in Israel except among scholars, and because there are no ancient Hebrew texts that refer to Jesus as "Yeshua", it is reasonable to conclude that few people, if any, ever referred to Jesus as "Yeshua" as people do today 2000 years later.
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Now beyond doubt, this is most arguably the Hebrew name of Jesus. God said it and Gabriel confirmed it. And even both Matthew the Apostle, and Isaiah the Prophet wrote it.
What is really awesome about this is that even though this is not an "Imperative Command", and Scripture does not directly command anyone to call Jesus "Immanuel", (עִמָּנוּ אֵל), it is a "Testimony" of God, something that God has witnessed of the future. Therefore, if God said that Jesus' Hebrew name was Immanuel, we can assume that we know what Jesus' real Hebrew name was.
It was very common for people to have different names in different languages: Peter's name was Simon in Hebrew, Cephas in Aramaic, and Petros in Greek. The list goes on. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus had an Aramaic name, "Isho'", a Greek name, "Iesous", and a Hebrew name, "Immanuel".
8. Conclusion
It is clear that the Apostles accepted and even encouraged the transliteration of the name of Jesus into other languages.
However, claiming that the Apostles, the people of Israel, or the rest of the world knew of Jesus as "Yeshua" in Hebrew during the period of the Apostolic Church is not supported at all historically.
And, if the Apostles did not consider proclaiming the name of Jesus in Hebrew as necessary, then it is well beyond the intellectualism of anyone today to suggest that the Church should use this name outside of Hebrew speaking communities.
Finally, because we know that faith must be preceded by what God has said and not our own intellectualism, it is not reasonable to ask others to simply believe that Jesus was originally called "Yeshua" in Hebrew. Rather, we can say with certainty that the Apostles, the Apostolic Church, and Scripture, all spoke of Jesus as, "Immanuel", "Isho'", and "Iesous".
Monday, July 14, 2008
Messianic Judaism.2008.07.14.01
cmp.2008.07.14
ed.2008.07.14.08 (A very rough draft/organization of an email I responded to.)
Should we observe Jewish Traditions and keep the Laws of Moses?
---------
The Talmud and Mishnah was mostly composed before Jesus even came to earth, weren't they?
---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah
No. Though, I do concede that some of the traditions that were mentioned in the Mishnah were widely observed during the time of Jesus. However, just because some traditions were followed then, does not necessarily mean that they were passed down from Moses.
I certainly do not have any evidence that some Oral tradition was passed down from Moses and preserved 100%.
According to Judaism, why do Jews believe in tradition?
1. Because Tradition says Tradition is authoritative.
2. Because if they didn't have tradition, they wouldn't know what things in Scripture meant.
If we would admit that we don't know what things mean, we would end up recognizing the prophecies that God would cause a famine where people would not know His Word, (Amos).
But, instead of accepting the possibility that we are far off and need to repent, we claim that we have full knowledge still. But unfortunately, reason says that the evidence of our nearness to God is God being with us. So, we can claim knowledge and intimacy of God all we want, but that doesn't change reality.
"God being with us" is not a subjective truth. It is an objective truth. Even Moses recognized that the presence of God would be apparent to all of the nations when He asked God, "If you do not go with us, how will the nations know that you favor us?"
---------
And I think Jesus' main argument against some of the oral traditions was that the Pharisees were using them to supersede the actual commands of Torah. A good example of this is your example in Mark 7. I think He was giving a parable, not declaring a new truth. In fact verse 17 says "His disciples asked Him about this parable" before the part you quoted below.
He goes on to talk about man's heart. I don't think He was changing the law, He was making a point about men's hearts. Otherwise He would have been contradicting everything He said earlier in the chapter. You're taking the verses out of context. :)
---------
You are right, the disciples questioned Jesus about the parable in Mark 7:17. And, in response, Jesus said that food doesn't make a man unclean. This was the interpretation of the parable. The parable came first, and then this explanation came second. So, it seems as though I am not taking it out of context because the interpretation of this "parable" was that food could not make a man unclean.
Yhe phrase, "Purifying all foods", is contextually considered a comment of Mark the Apostle, (the writer). Mark wasn't speaking in a parable. He was providing a "commentary" of sorts. He was saying, "When Jesus said this, He in effect purified all foods, so that food could no longer be considered unclean." It is not a new thought to believe that purification comes through the Word of God.
Remember, the Law of Moses was given to Israel because of the hardness of their hearts, meaning that they were unwilling to obey. So, God gave them "easier" laws to obey. God wanted them to keep their hearts pure by not defiling it with the things that came out. But, they were unwilling. So, God gave them the dietary laws instead to teach them the concept of being defiled in their hearts.
If Jesus was not trying to say that it was not what goes into us that makes us unclean, but what comes out, then what was Jesus really trying to say? If He wasn't really saying what He said, what else could He have possibly meant?
But, I believe Jesus is right. Food does not defiles us, it is what comes out of us that defiles us. Food cannot make us unclean before God.
Again, eating with unclean hands has nothing to do with kosher laws in the Bible.
--------
Regarding the verse "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean": Now I don't speak Greek, but I don't believe the words 'in saying this, Jesus declared' are even in the text. I think it says something like "purifying all foods".
--------
http://biblos.com/mark/7-19.htm
If you look at the little horizontal link list, you will see a link that says: Grk/Heb
All you have to do is hover your mouse over the blue Greek words, and it will show you what each word corresponds too. And then, click it. The little pop up definition is different than the definition that they present.
So, if Jesus, as you say, "purified all foods" through what He said, then how could they be considered unclean?
--------
I think He was referring back to the earlier argument about whether or not ritually washing your hands could make food clean or unclean. None of them were eating ham, after all. They were eating bread.
--------
Good point. They initially we talking about not washing their hands before eating bread, (which was a custom or tradition and still is). It certainly was not a law of Moses. But, then Jesus made an argument to prove how stupid their tradition was. He said in essence, "No matter what you eat, it won't make you unclean, so what does it matter if don't wash your hands?
Regardless of any of this, the Disciples still ate without washing, and in Acts, Peter still ate with the Greeks.
--------
If He didn't fulfill Torah perfectly, He could not have been the sacrifice for our sin. And if we're supposed to imitate Him, then why are we changing His Torah when even He didn't do that?
--------
Jesus said, that if anyone would teach anyone to dismiss any of the laws, they would be condemned. So, even if Jesus were fulfilling the law, and He taught His disciples to break it, then Jesus would be guilty too. So, Jesus wasn't teaching them contrary to what Moses taught. Remember, the disciples even picked grain out of the fields on Shabbat. This was explicitly forbidden in the laws of Moses. And, if Jesus taught them that it was okay, then Jesus would be guilty too...
But Jesus made the argument, "You all have no understanding of the Law of Moses". So then, why are Christians going to Jews to understand the laws of Moses if even Jesus said that the Jews did not understand?
Further, Jesus certainly changed the Torah. It is very evident in Scripture. For example, the major component of the Torah were the laws of the Priesthood, the Temple and the Sacrifices. So, we KNOW that Jesus' life, death, resurrection and priesthood dramatically changed the Torah.
So, it seems that it would be inaccurate to say that Jesus didn't change the Torah. He fulfilled and satisfied all of the obligations within it, and because of that, there is no longer a need to satisfy it still. Isn't this what the Gospel is by definition?
--------
Maybe Jesus was a Pharisee, or at least trained by them.
--------
We know Jesus wasn't a Pharisee or taught by them. Otherwise, they wouldn't have asked Him how He knew those things... "Isn't this the carpenter's son?". Remember, He started teaching at 12 and they didn't have a clue how He knew those things then either. He certainly was not a Pharisee. Personally, I think He sided with the Sadducees more. :P But, whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees
--------
Maybe He was so hard on them because of how severely they had misinterpreted the laws away from their original or literal meaning.
--------
He said that He was hard on them because:
1. They sacrificed obedience to the law in order to observe their "traditions".
2. They were hypocritical in that they neglected incredibly important things in the law, and were nitpicky about little things like washing hands, etc.
3. That they added to the law shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven and ended up making people twice the sons of hell than they were.
The guys don't sound very kosher. Ironically enough, Rabbinical Jews are still guilty of all of these things today.
--------
It goes without saying that law does not bring salvation. But why do Christians so quickly throw out the original guidelines God gave for living?
--------
Why do Messianic Jews not study the commandments of Jesus and prefer to study the commandments of Moses and empty traditions of men?
Why do people believe that the Law of Moses was simpler than the Law of Jesus?
Even the Disciples freaked out when Jesus said that even if a man lusted after a woman in his heart, he was committing adultery. Then the Disciples said, how can anyone do this? Then Jesus said that they were right, with men it is impossible... But with God, all things are possible.
In other words, the commandments of Jesus are pretty weighty and must be considered. After all, the Son of God is who proclaimed them.
--------
Even the foreigner and alien living among them in the camp had to follow the law. The gift we have now is the Holy Spirit living His life through us, and open access to His throne because of His blood.
--------
1. This law applied to people in Israel and didn't have anything to do with the U.S.
2. Even Jews in Israel who were Christians observed the new covenant and not the old.
3. The Apostles specifically went out of their way in Acts chapt 15 to make sure that it was clear that Gentiles were under no obligation to the Law of Moses.
4. Paul commanded Gentiles not to observe Jewish law. (The entire book of Galatians.)
This are very compelling reasons, very reasonable, and very Biblical of why Gentiles should not put themselves under the yoke of the Mosaic Law.
Now, did either Jesus or the Apostles ever command Gentiles to obey the laws of Moses or Jewish traditions AFTER Jesus rattified the New Covenant?
--------
Not all traditions are bad - only when they become a burden and a legalistic way of gaining salvation. When a tradition supersedes the actual Torah (like saying unclean hands make clean food unclean), then you have to look carefully at the tradition.
--------
Even Paul taught "traditions". But, to teach people that Jesus observed "Jewish" traditions like Jews do today is historically inaccurate. It is then inaccurate to claim that by immitating Antichrists, (Jews today), that Christians somehow be more like Jesus. It isn't rational. Why are Christians consulting Antichrist doctrine to learn more about Jesus?
--------
The Passover service is like many of the other feasts, isn't it? The traditions and guidelines were laid down much later than the original Torah, or even when Jesus Himself celebrated it. I don't think that invalidates them. It's still full of reminders of truth. I think even the things that were supposed to be 'Anti-Christ' have backfired. (For instance, removing Isaiah 53 from the traditional Yom Kippur readings because of fear of the Jews recognizing Jesus was a pretty silly thing to do. To me that just makes it more obvious that He really is the Messiah).
--------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalosh_regalim
I am not entirely certain what you are asking... But, there are three major festivals in Judaism, and each is considered a "Shabbat" regardless if it falls on an actual Shabbat or not. For example, if Passover fell on a Thursday night, (15th of Nisan), then Thursday night to Friday night would be considered "Shabbat". And then, Friday night to Saturday night would be considered Shabbat too. This means that two days in a row would be Shabbat. This is why they wanted to get Jesus off of the cross before evening so that He wouldn't be dead and hanging for two days. :(
But, observance of Passover was defined in Exodus and again in Deut. After the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D, Jews began to redefine how Passover was to be celebrated. A whole lot has changed. So, it is apparent that Jesus celebrated it totally different than Jews today.
Just because Jews have changed the way they observe Passover does not mean that the way that Christians were taught how to observe Passover must change. And, Christians were taught to celebrate in the form of communion, as often as we come together, not just one or two times a year.
--------
So, what do you think? Are you playing devil's advocate? I love talking about this stuff.
--------
I think that Christians today who presume to teach others to obey the law of Moses and neglect the commands of Jesus are in effect guilty of the same hypocrisy that the Pharisees were: they strain out a gnat and choke on a camel.
Why is it that Christians believe that they are supposed to eat kosher and not give food to every hungry person that asks of them? Why do Christians presume to follow religiously traditional Judaism every day and do not pursue visiting the orphans, the prisoners, the widows, and preaching the gospel every day? These things are SO much more important. Just like Jesus said, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you because you never did these things for me ...".
So, the great commission is to make disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey all of the commandments that Jesus had taught.
Somewhere along the line, people need to be reminded of these things.
http://www.google.com/search?q=commandments+of+Jesus&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
ed.2008.07.14.08 (A very rough draft/organization of an email I responded to.)
Should we observe Jewish Traditions and keep the Laws of Moses?
---------
The Talmud and Mishnah was mostly composed before Jesus even came to earth, weren't they?
---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah
No. Though, I do concede that some of the traditions that were mentioned in the Mishnah were widely observed during the time of Jesus. However, just because some traditions were followed then, does not necessarily mean that they were passed down from Moses.
I certainly do not have any evidence that some Oral tradition was passed down from Moses and preserved 100%.
According to Judaism, why do Jews believe in tradition?
1. Because Tradition says Tradition is authoritative.
2. Because if they didn't have tradition, they wouldn't know what things in Scripture meant.
If we would admit that we don't know what things mean, we would end up recognizing the prophecies that God would cause a famine where people would not know His Word, (Amos).
But, instead of accepting the possibility that we are far off and need to repent, we claim that we have full knowledge still. But unfortunately, reason says that the evidence of our nearness to God is God being with us. So, we can claim knowledge and intimacy of God all we want, but that doesn't change reality.
"God being with us" is not a subjective truth. It is an objective truth. Even Moses recognized that the presence of God would be apparent to all of the nations when He asked God, "If you do not go with us, how will the nations know that you favor us?"
---------
And I think Jesus' main argument against some of the oral traditions was that the Pharisees were using them to supersede the actual commands of Torah. A good example of this is your example in Mark 7. I think He was giving a parable, not declaring a new truth. In fact verse 17 says "His disciples asked Him about this parable" before the part you quoted below.
He goes on to talk about man's heart. I don't think He was changing the law, He was making a point about men's hearts. Otherwise He would have been contradicting everything He said earlier in the chapter. You're taking the verses out of context. :)
---------
You are right, the disciples questioned Jesus about the parable in Mark 7:17. And, in response, Jesus said that food doesn't make a man unclean. This was the interpretation of the parable. The parable came first, and then this explanation came second. So, it seems as though I am not taking it out of context because the interpretation of this "parable" was that food could not make a man unclean.
Yhe phrase, "Purifying all foods", is contextually considered a comment of Mark the Apostle, (the writer). Mark wasn't speaking in a parable. He was providing a "commentary" of sorts. He was saying, "When Jesus said this, He in effect purified all foods, so that food could no longer be considered unclean." It is not a new thought to believe that purification comes through the Word of God.
Remember, the Law of Moses was given to Israel because of the hardness of their hearts, meaning that they were unwilling to obey. So, God gave them "easier" laws to obey. God wanted them to keep their hearts pure by not defiling it with the things that came out. But, they were unwilling. So, God gave them the dietary laws instead to teach them the concept of being defiled in their hearts.
If Jesus was not trying to say that it was not what goes into us that makes us unclean, but what comes out, then what was Jesus really trying to say? If He wasn't really saying what He said, what else could He have possibly meant?
But, I believe Jesus is right. Food does not defiles us, it is what comes out of us that defiles us. Food cannot make us unclean before God.
Again, eating with unclean hands has nothing to do with kosher laws in the Bible.
--------
Regarding the verse "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean": Now I don't speak Greek, but I don't believe the words 'in saying this, Jesus declared' are even in the text. I think it says something like "purifying all foods".
--------
http://biblos.com/mark/7-19.htm
If you look at the little horizontal link list, you will see a link that says: Grk/Heb
All you have to do is hover your mouse over the blue Greek words, and it will show you what each word corresponds too. And then, click it. The little pop up definition is different than the definition that they present.
So, if Jesus, as you say, "purified all foods" through what He said, then how could they be considered unclean?
--------
I think He was referring back to the earlier argument about whether or not ritually washing your hands could make food clean or unclean. None of them were eating ham, after all. They were eating bread.
--------
Good point. They initially we talking about not washing their hands before eating bread, (which was a custom or tradition and still is). It certainly was not a law of Moses. But, then Jesus made an argument to prove how stupid their tradition was. He said in essence, "No matter what you eat, it won't make you unclean, so what does it matter if don't wash your hands?
Regardless of any of this, the Disciples still ate without washing, and in Acts, Peter still ate with the Greeks.
--------
If He didn't fulfill Torah perfectly, He could not have been the sacrifice for our sin. And if we're supposed to imitate Him, then why are we changing His Torah when even He didn't do that?
--------
Jesus said, that if anyone would teach anyone to dismiss any of the laws, they would be condemned. So, even if Jesus were fulfilling the law, and He taught His disciples to break it, then Jesus would be guilty too. So, Jesus wasn't teaching them contrary to what Moses taught. Remember, the disciples even picked grain out of the fields on Shabbat. This was explicitly forbidden in the laws of Moses. And, if Jesus taught them that it was okay, then Jesus would be guilty too...
But Jesus made the argument, "You all have no understanding of the Law of Moses". So then, why are Christians going to Jews to understand the laws of Moses if even Jesus said that the Jews did not understand?
Further, Jesus certainly changed the Torah. It is very evident in Scripture. For example, the major component of the Torah were the laws of the Priesthood, the Temple and the Sacrifices. So, we KNOW that Jesus' life, death, resurrection and priesthood dramatically changed the Torah.
So, it seems that it would be inaccurate to say that Jesus didn't change the Torah. He fulfilled and satisfied all of the obligations within it, and because of that, there is no longer a need to satisfy it still. Isn't this what the Gospel is by definition?
--------
Maybe Jesus was a Pharisee, or at least trained by them.
--------
We know Jesus wasn't a Pharisee or taught by them. Otherwise, they wouldn't have asked Him how He knew those things... "Isn't this the carpenter's son?". Remember, He started teaching at 12 and they didn't have a clue how He knew those things then either. He certainly was not a Pharisee. Personally, I think He sided with the Sadducees more. :P But, whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees
--------
Maybe He was so hard on them because of how severely they had misinterpreted the laws away from their original or literal meaning.
--------
He said that He was hard on them because:
1. They sacrificed obedience to the law in order to observe their "traditions".
2. They were hypocritical in that they neglected incredibly important things in the law, and were nitpicky about little things like washing hands, etc.
3. That they added to the law shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven and ended up making people twice the sons of hell than they were.
The guys don't sound very kosher. Ironically enough, Rabbinical Jews are still guilty of all of these things today.
--------
It goes without saying that law does not bring salvation. But why do Christians so quickly throw out the original guidelines God gave for living?
--------
Why do Messianic Jews not study the commandments of Jesus and prefer to study the commandments of Moses and empty traditions of men?
Why do people believe that the Law of Moses was simpler than the Law of Jesus?
Even the Disciples freaked out when Jesus said that even if a man lusted after a woman in his heart, he was committing adultery. Then the Disciples said, how can anyone do this? Then Jesus said that they were right, with men it is impossible... But with God, all things are possible.
In other words, the commandments of Jesus are pretty weighty and must be considered. After all, the Son of God is who proclaimed them.
--------
Even the foreigner and alien living among them in the camp had to follow the law. The gift we have now is the Holy Spirit living His life through us, and open access to His throne because of His blood.
--------
1. This law applied to people in Israel and didn't have anything to do with the U.S.
2. Even Jews in Israel who were Christians observed the new covenant and not the old.
3. The Apostles specifically went out of their way in Acts chapt 15 to make sure that it was clear that Gentiles were under no obligation to the Law of Moses.
4. Paul commanded Gentiles not to observe Jewish law. (The entire book of Galatians.)
This are very compelling reasons, very reasonable, and very Biblical of why Gentiles should not put themselves under the yoke of the Mosaic Law.
Now, did either Jesus or the Apostles ever command Gentiles to obey the laws of Moses or Jewish traditions AFTER Jesus rattified the New Covenant?
--------
Not all traditions are bad - only when they become a burden and a legalistic way of gaining salvation. When a tradition supersedes the actual Torah (like saying unclean hands make clean food unclean), then you have to look carefully at the tradition.
--------
Even Paul taught "traditions". But, to teach people that Jesus observed "Jewish" traditions like Jews do today is historically inaccurate. It is then inaccurate to claim that by immitating Antichrists, (Jews today), that Christians somehow be more like Jesus. It isn't rational. Why are Christians consulting Antichrist doctrine to learn more about Jesus?
--------
The Passover service is like many of the other feasts, isn't it? The traditions and guidelines were laid down much later than the original Torah, or even when Jesus Himself celebrated it. I don't think that invalidates them. It's still full of reminders of truth. I think even the things that were supposed to be 'Anti-Christ' have backfired. (For instance, removing Isaiah 53 from the traditional Yom Kippur readings because of fear of the Jews recognizing Jesus was a pretty silly thing to do. To me that just makes it more obvious that He really is the Messiah).
--------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalosh_regalim
I am not entirely certain what you are asking... But, there are three major festivals in Judaism, and each is considered a "Shabbat" regardless if it falls on an actual Shabbat or not. For example, if Passover fell on a Thursday night, (15th of Nisan), then Thursday night to Friday night would be considered "Shabbat". And then, Friday night to Saturday night would be considered Shabbat too. This means that two days in a row would be Shabbat. This is why they wanted to get Jesus off of the cross before evening so that He wouldn't be dead and hanging for two days. :(
But, observance of Passover was defined in Exodus and again in Deut. After the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D, Jews began to redefine how Passover was to be celebrated. A whole lot has changed. So, it is apparent that Jesus celebrated it totally different than Jews today.
Just because Jews have changed the way they observe Passover does not mean that the way that Christians were taught how to observe Passover must change. And, Christians were taught to celebrate in the form of communion, as often as we come together, not just one or two times a year.
--------
So, what do you think? Are you playing devil's advocate? I love talking about this stuff.
--------
I think that Christians today who presume to teach others to obey the law of Moses and neglect the commands of Jesus are in effect guilty of the same hypocrisy that the Pharisees were: they strain out a gnat and choke on a camel.
Why is it that Christians believe that they are supposed to eat kosher and not give food to every hungry person that asks of them? Why do Christians presume to follow religiously traditional Judaism every day and do not pursue visiting the orphans, the prisoners, the widows, and preaching the gospel every day? These things are SO much more important. Just like Jesus said, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you because you never did these things for me ...".
So, the great commission is to make disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey all of the commandments that Jesus had taught.
Somewhere along the line, people need to be reminded of these things.
http://www.google.com/search?q=commandments+of+Jesus&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A New Heart
cmp.2008.06.26
ed.2008.08.05.01 (Public Review)
Organization
1. The Promise Of A New Heart
2. Hearts Of Stone
3. A New Heart To Hear
4. A New Heart To Obey
5. A New Heart To Know
The Promise Of A New Heart
It is evident throughout Scripture, hearts of flesh and hardened hearts of stone are symbolic of two contrary natures. Our hardened hearts are hearts of stone, and because of the state of our hearts, we rebel against God. But, the heart of flesh is that nature that seeks the Word of God and eagerly submits to His will.
It is written that God has promised to give us a new heart, a heart of flesh in place of our heart of stone. And, as a result, we know that by having hearts of flesh, God has the opportunity to write His law upon our hearts so that we can live in obedience.
God Promises To Give Us Hearts Of Flesh
Ezekiel 36:26 (NASB)
"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Hearts Of Stone
Scripture teaches us over and over again that a hardened heart is a heart that does not fear God and a heart that rebels against God.
The conclusion of Ecclesiastes is that the whole duty of Man is to fear God and to obey Him, and this is exactly what a hardened heart of stone does not do.
A Hardened Heart Is Rebellious
2 Chronicles 36:13 (NASB)
He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar who had made him swear allegiance by God But he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD God of Israel.
A Hardened Heart Strays From God And Does Not Fear Him
Isaiah 63:17 (NASB)
Why, O LORD, do You cause us to stray from Your ways And harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.
A Hardened Heart Brings Death
Ephesians 4:17-18 (NASB)
So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
A New Heart To Hear
In Zechariah, God does not simply compare the hearts of those who cannot hear to stone, but He compares their hearts to flint stone. It cannot be coincidence that God is comparing their hardened hearts to a stone that is harder than granite.
But God promised us a new heart of flesh, where the roots of His seed in us, His word, can grow in order to withstand tribulation. He promises to give us a heart of flesh so that His word will grow in us. And if our hearts are sensitive, we will be able to see with our eyes, hear with our ears, understand with our hearts, and return and be healed.
A Hardened Heart Cannot Hear
Zechariah 7:12 (NASB)
"They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.
If We Want To Hear His Voice, We Cannot Harden Our Hearts
Psalms 95:7-8 (NASB)
For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand Today, if you would hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness .
God Promises To Write His Law On Our Hearts
Jeremiah 31:33 (NASB)
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
A New Heart To Obey
Throughout Scripture, God consistently expresses His will towards us through His commandments. But over and over again the will of God falls upon our hearts of stone.
We know that the word of God is life. And, because of this, we receive His word with joy. But, when His word has no firm root within our hearts, and because we are only temporary in our steadfastness, we fall from obedience to His word when persecution or affliction arises because of the word given to us.
When He Takes Away Our Hearts Of Stone, We Can Keep His Ways
Ezekiel 11:19-20 (NASB)
"And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.
If We Have Hearts Of Felsh, God Will Cause Us To Obey
Ezekiel 36:26-27 (NASB)
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
A New Heart To Know
The singular expressed passion of God towards us is that we may know Him. But how can we know God if we don't even know His will? Unless we have hearts of flesh, God cannot fully reveal His will towards us. If we do not know the will of God, we cannot obey. And, if we do not obey His will, we cannot claim to know God.
God Promises To Give Us A New Heart So That We Can Know Him
Jeremiah 24:7 (NASB)
'I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
The New Covenant Is A Promise To Know God
Jeremiah 31:33-34 (NASB)
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
We Cannot Know Him If We Do Not Obey
1 John 2:3-6 (NASB)
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
ed.2008.08.05.01 (Public Review)
Organization
1. The Promise Of A New Heart
2. Hearts Of Stone
3. A New Heart To Hear
4. A New Heart To Obey
5. A New Heart To Know
The Promise Of A New Heart
It is evident throughout Scripture, hearts of flesh and hardened hearts of stone are symbolic of two contrary natures. Our hardened hearts are hearts of stone, and because of the state of our hearts, we rebel against God. But, the heart of flesh is that nature that seeks the Word of God and eagerly submits to His will.
It is written that God has promised to give us a new heart, a heart of flesh in place of our heart of stone. And, as a result, we know that by having hearts of flesh, God has the opportunity to write His law upon our hearts so that we can live in obedience.
God Promises To Give Us Hearts Of Flesh
Ezekiel 36:26 (NASB)
"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Hearts Of Stone
Scripture teaches us over and over again that a hardened heart is a heart that does not fear God and a heart that rebels against God.
The conclusion of Ecclesiastes is that the whole duty of Man is to fear God and to obey Him, and this is exactly what a hardened heart of stone does not do.
A Hardened Heart Is Rebellious
2 Chronicles 36:13 (NASB)
He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar who had made him swear allegiance by God But he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD God of Israel.
A Hardened Heart Strays From God And Does Not Fear Him
Isaiah 63:17 (NASB)
Why, O LORD, do You cause us to stray from Your ways And harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.
A Hardened Heart Brings Death
Ephesians 4:17-18 (NASB)
So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
A New Heart To Hear
In Zechariah, God does not simply compare the hearts of those who cannot hear to stone, but He compares their hearts to flint stone. It cannot be coincidence that God is comparing their hardened hearts to a stone that is harder than granite.
But God promised us a new heart of flesh, where the roots of His seed in us, His word, can grow in order to withstand tribulation. He promises to give us a heart of flesh so that His word will grow in us. And if our hearts are sensitive, we will be able to see with our eyes, hear with our ears, understand with our hearts, and return and be healed.
A Hardened Heart Cannot Hear
Zechariah 7:12 (NASB)
"They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.
If We Want To Hear His Voice, We Cannot Harden Our Hearts
Psalms 95:7-8 (NASB)
For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand Today, if you would hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness .
God Promises To Write His Law On Our Hearts
Jeremiah 31:33 (NASB)
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
A New Heart To Obey
Throughout Scripture, God consistently expresses His will towards us through His commandments. But over and over again the will of God falls upon our hearts of stone.
We know that the word of God is life. And, because of this, we receive His word with joy. But, when His word has no firm root within our hearts, and because we are only temporary in our steadfastness, we fall from obedience to His word when persecution or affliction arises because of the word given to us.
When He Takes Away Our Hearts Of Stone, We Can Keep His Ways
Ezekiel 11:19-20 (NASB)
"And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.
If We Have Hearts Of Felsh, God Will Cause Us To Obey
Ezekiel 36:26-27 (NASB)
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
A New Heart To Know
The singular expressed passion of God towards us is that we may know Him. But how can we know God if we don't even know His will? Unless we have hearts of flesh, God cannot fully reveal His will towards us. If we do not know the will of God, we cannot obey. And, if we do not obey His will, we cannot claim to know God.
God Promises To Give Us A New Heart So That We Can Know Him
Jeremiah 24:7 (NASB)
'I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
The New Covenant Is A Promise To Know God
Jeremiah 31:33-34 (NASB)
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
We Cannot Know Him If We Do Not Obey
1 John 2:3-6 (NASB)
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Phil. 2:12 - Work
cmp.2008.06.23
ed.2009.06.11.02 (Public Review)
Organization
1. The Command
2. The Dilemma
3. Consistent Interpretation
4. Conclusion
5. Textual Analysis
The Command
Phil. 2:12 (NASB)
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
The Dilemma
When I first heard this verse, it was explained to me that this meant that we should each "figure out" our own salvation with fear and trembling. Even though this may not be a widely taught interpretation, I would like to explain this interpretation in order to clarify this commandment.
In English, we often use the phrase "to work out" to mean "figure out". I do not have an explanation why it was justified to interpret this passage in view of an English idiom, especially from this Greek passage, and in this particular context.
On the otherhand, if this passage really means that we are literally supposed to "work", it would be further evidence that Christians are called to do good work.
Consistent Interpretation
If we are each to "figure out" our own salvation, then there is not one way to find salvation. It is hard to believe that the path to salvation is "relative". Is the path to salvation different for each of us? Is it true that we all have to discover some new way to salvation, or has The Way already been made known to everyone? Christians believe that there is only one way to the Father, and that is through trust in Jesus, His son.
So, if this word "work" does not mean, "figure out", then what does it mean? The word "work" is used several times in this passage. It is unreasonable to interpret this word to mean "figure out" in one place, and as literal "work" in all of the other places. Isn't it reasonable to interpret this word consistently in this context? Either each of these passages in Greek implies "figuring out", or each of these passages imply literal "work" that is done. This is especially true because in every place, the same Greek root word is used.
Since there are no other instances in Scripture where "work" implies "figuring out", and since every use of this word in Scripture implies "something being done", then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that this passage implies a literal action being accomplished.
Conclusion
If we interpret "work" literally, this command simply states:
"With fear and trembling of your own salvation, work!"
Isn't this also the final conclusion of Ecclesiastes?
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NASB)
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.
Isn't the fear of God the beginning of wisdom? Is it not also written that we are created to do good works?
Christians do not do good works because we are looking to be saved. On the contrary, we do good works as a result of our salvation. God, through the Spirit of Holiness has worked His salvation in us. As a result of what God has worked in us, we work for His pleasure. We do not work to earn salvation, but we live to do good work so that we may glorify God.
Textual Analysis
Argument:
In every case the word "work" is used in this passage, the same Greek root word is used. In every case, this word implies literal "work".
Phil. 2:12
μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε
with fear and trembling the your [own] salvation work
(Notice that the word "out", (as in "work out"), is not represented in the Greek.)
Phil. 2:13
θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας.
God for is the worker in you [all] and the to will and the to work of the pleasure [of Him]
Phil. 2:30
ὅτι διὰ τὸ ἔργον κυρίου
because through the work [of the] Lord
ed.2009.06.11.02 (Public Review)
Organization
1. The Command
2. The Dilemma
3. Consistent Interpretation
4. Conclusion
5. Textual Analysis
The Command
Phil. 2:12 (NASB)
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
The Dilemma
When I first heard this verse, it was explained to me that this meant that we should each "figure out" our own salvation with fear and trembling. Even though this may not be a widely taught interpretation, I would like to explain this interpretation in order to clarify this commandment.
In English, we often use the phrase "to work out" to mean "figure out". I do not have an explanation why it was justified to interpret this passage in view of an English idiom, especially from this Greek passage, and in this particular context.
On the otherhand, if this passage really means that we are literally supposed to "work", it would be further evidence that Christians are called to do good work.
Consistent Interpretation
If we are each to "figure out" our own salvation, then there is not one way to find salvation. It is hard to believe that the path to salvation is "relative". Is the path to salvation different for each of us? Is it true that we all have to discover some new way to salvation, or has The Way already been made known to everyone? Christians believe that there is only one way to the Father, and that is through trust in Jesus, His son.
So, if this word "work" does not mean, "figure out", then what does it mean? The word "work" is used several times in this passage. It is unreasonable to interpret this word to mean "figure out" in one place, and as literal "work" in all of the other places. Isn't it reasonable to interpret this word consistently in this context? Either each of these passages in Greek implies "figuring out", or each of these passages imply literal "work" that is done. This is especially true because in every place, the same Greek root word is used.
Since there are no other instances in Scripture where "work" implies "figuring out", and since every use of this word in Scripture implies "something being done", then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that this passage implies a literal action being accomplished.
Conclusion
If we interpret "work" literally, this command simply states:
"With fear and trembling of your own salvation, work!"
Isn't this also the final conclusion of Ecclesiastes?
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NASB)
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.
Isn't the fear of God the beginning of wisdom? Is it not also written that we are created to do good works?
Christians do not do good works because we are looking to be saved. On the contrary, we do good works as a result of our salvation. God, through the Spirit of Holiness has worked His salvation in us. As a result of what God has worked in us, we work for His pleasure. We do not work to earn salvation, but we live to do good work so that we may glorify God.
Textual Analysis
Argument:
In every case the word "work" is used in this passage, the same Greek root word is used. In every case, this word implies literal "work".
Phil. 2:12
μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε
with fear and trembling the your [own] salvation work
(Notice that the word "out", (as in "work out"), is not represented in the Greek.)
Phil. 2:13
θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας.
God for is the worker in you [all] and the to will and the to work of the pleasure [of Him]
Phil. 2:30
ὅτι διὰ τὸ ἔργον κυρίου
because through the work [of the] Lord
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
