This is an interesting question, and one that often separates Jews and Christians. It is important to recognize that we have already turned to the points where Paul says that the Torah (Romans 3:31) should be followed, and how Yeshua (Matthew 5:17-20) says that not one letter from the Torah or the Prophets shall disappear from the text. We've also taken a look to see whether or not we are still under the Torah (per 1 John 3:4) and have come to the conclusion that yes, this has not changed with the New Testament (Brit Hadashah). So we must see if Peter and Paul are following suit with what Yeshua says, or if they are falsely parading the name of God. Lets see where the controversy starts. Mark 7 is a good place to start. The actual connection to be drawn here is a handwashing ceremony that the Pharisees utilized in order to declare foods clean. " 1(A)The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come (B)from Jerusalem,
2and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with (C)impure hands, that is, unwashed.
3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the (D)traditions of the elders;
4and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of (E)cups and pitchers and copper pots.)" Yeshua responds to them. Mark 7:18 is a good place to begin. This is where Yeshua states " 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared (R)all foods (S)clean.) " Its important to notate what qualifies as food. This list is given in Leviticus 11 of the Tanakh. So anything not mentioned there is not even considered to be food. This has nothing to do with kosher law whatsoever. Secondly, the reference of what this actually is in reference to can be found after verse 19. "20And He was saying, "(T)That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, (U)envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." So wait a minute. Right off the bat, we see Yeshua is talking about something besides food when he is talking about the heart. Acts 10:9-29 is a section of the Bible that begins with a section of Peter seeing a vision of nonkosher food. What is stated is that Peter hears a voice that tells him to get up and kill and eat. Peter states ""By no means, (F)Lord, for (G)I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Now its funny that right here, the Lord does not rebuke Peter. If you recall, when Peter doubted the purpose of what Yeshua came here on the Earth, it is recorded that Yeshua tells Peter "Get behind me Satan." Another possibility is that God could have responded, "Peter why do you deny or doubt my command?" Neither of these things occur here. How does the voice respond? ""(H)What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." So what is God telling Peter then? He never rebukes Peter for doubting his commandment. He is rebuking Peter for following one of the oral traditions. And its important when we read further down in Acts 10 what actually occurs. Again, this has to do with what Jews thought about Gentiles. Never does it declare in the Torah that Jews are not to associate with Gentiles. As a matter of fact, in Numbers 15:14-16, it states that Gentiles are to follow the same teaching as the Jews. So how does Peter understand this vision? In the proper way available. " 28And he said to them, "You yourselves know how (Y)unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet (Z)God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean." So Peter didn't understand this vision to actually be applied to food,l but rather to a foreigner (Goyim, Gentiles also the same term utilized in Numbers 15). Lets proceed further. What do the Jews get upset with Peter about in Acts 11? Peter is eating with the Gentiles. The Jews respond to him "2And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, (B)those who were circumcised took issue with him,
3saying, "(C)You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." So we see it was not the food content that the Jews were upset about. It was that Peter actually associated with Gentiles in the first place. So in other words, we understand Acts to not be referring to food, but to going out and preaching to the Gentiles, completely in line with scripture. We have also seen what is taught in scripture about hedging the Torah (a.k.a. following the traditions of the elders).
Let us go now to Acts 15. Another controversial passage between the Jewish community and the Christians. Essentially, this is where Paul and Barnabas and others are deliberating as to how to break in the kosher law with the Gentiles. Its interesting that when Paul begins the letter, it is a direct quote from Amos 9:11. This has to do with the restoration of Israel, which has to do with the covenant of Jacob. So it also has to do with eating in a kosher manner. This is tied to Acts 15:16-18. We continue to Acts 15:19-20. "19"Therefore it is (AM)my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20but that we write to them that they abstain from (AN)things contaminated by idols and from (AO)fornication and from (AP)what is strangled and from blood. " Why does Paul state this then? Interesting question. Kosher law is tied to abstaining from anything that contains blood. It is for instance not kosher to eat a steak that is raw because it contains blood. It also follows that anything that eats blood and does not actually excreet the blood from its body should not be considered kosher because if we eat such things, we will essentially be partaking of blood. So Paul presents the Noachide law to the Gentiles for the purpose of introducing the kosher law without burdening them too much with deep understanding. The Gentiles were doing all of the things mentioned above because of their religious ceremonies. This can be seen today when we present kosher law to Christians. The first response that usually pops into their head is "why should I follow this stuff? Its silly." Well it seems silly to the Christian because they are not with understanding of the purpose for kosher law. And in the same way, neither were the Gentiles well equipped at the time for this understanding. Thus milk had to be presented to the Gentiles before the meat could be partaken of. This is a proper evangelistic technique that Christians should be able to follow. We continue to the next verse that is extremely important. " 21"For (AQ)Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." And what does Moses teach? Back to Leviticus 11. He teaches kosher law. So they are not concerned about the Gentiles grasping this concept all at once. They must be broken into the mold before the proper understanding of kosher law can be obtained, and this is down in the synagogues. The Gentiles would gain this understanding from the synagogue in the future, but as we state, this is a start for understanding (Noachide law). The "church of Antioch" erego is therefore being taught kosher law and the Torah, much as it may be disappointing for both groups of Catholics and Protestants to hear.
One at this point may feel compelled to offer Romans 14 or Colossians 2:16 as an explanation for why we do not have to eat kosher. As we shall see from the following note from "The Refiners Fire" this is incorrect as well. Its again, out of context. We have to understand the society to which Paul is writing this message to. What is going on here has to do with something not 100% centered around kosher law. Romans 14:2 which states "2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables." This in context has to do with the halakha, which when Jews were eating of Gentile food, they would only eat of vegetables because they thought the food was sacrificed to pagan idols. We proceed with asking does Romans 14:5-6 refute the need for kosher food? "Absolutely not. The context of this passage was a dispute over whether one may eat food that MAY or MAY NOT have been offered to idols. In those days food that was offered to idols was usually put out for sale to people on a certain day of the week. It could or could not have been offered to idols. Therefore, some believers would not buy food and eat it on those days just to make sure. However, some believers did, because they reasoned that since they didn't know for sure it was offered, it was not wrong. Paul's instruction did not address either Kosher or Sabbath day observance. It addressed the dispute over whether marketplace food, because of idolatry, should be purchased and eaten on a certain day of the week. It also shows how sensitive the believers were to the possibility of food offered to idols. How much more sensitive should we be to what we eat, as to whether or not it is approved by the Word of God." http://www.therefinersfire.org/book_of_romans1.htm We could also look at Romans 14:14 -"14 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that (A)nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who (B)thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." Again, the context is of food. Jews do not consider anything that is not found in Leviticus 11 to be clean. And that is what is meant here. Anything found in Leviticus 11 is not unclean. But if say for instance, blood is not disposed of properly, then for him who eats of the food, it is unclean. This was an issue again that was founded between the Gentiles and the Jewish halakahs. Because the Jews of the synagogues that were practicing the halakah did not partake of Gentile food because they were afraid of it being unclean, in the same way here Jews should regard that which is unclean as unclean. But it should be inspected to see if kosher practices are being implemented. Also a pig is not unclean in itself, but it is unclean because God deems it so. We proceed to verse 17 which states "17for the kingdom of God (A)is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and (B)peace and (C)joy in the Holy Spirit. " Its interesting that the word "ekkelesia" is not used here. This is in fact referring to not seeking what we can have, but the higher things of what God wants us to have. In other words, the kingdom of God is said not to be free in eating and drinking. This is in accordance with verse 22. "22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who (A)does not condemn himself in what he approves." One may also note the passage "20(AI)Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food (AJ)All things indeed are clean, but (AK)they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. " In other words, what is food? All things which are food are clean. Food = Leviticus 11. How does one give offense? By tearing down the work fo God and not following Leviticus 11.
Colossians 2:16 states "16Therefore no one is to (G)act as your judge in regard to (H)food or (I)drink or in respect to a (J)festival or a (K)new moon or a (L)Sabbath day-- " What is this in reference to? One may actually note that this does not cancel out the need for the festivals or a new moon or Sabbath day or kosher law. The one thing that changes here is that no one is to tell us how to celebrate these things, except for God. The translation from the KJV even states "no man." In other words, we have to go back to the Torah as the final word on how to celebrate these things. No man may judge us on how to celebrate these things. Similar to the hedge idea that the writers of the Talmud had. They are telling us unnecessary things to follow in relevance to the Torah. As Yeshua did away with the oral traditions, it is no longer necessary to follow any of them that do not coincide with the teachings of the Torah from the Bible. We've already covered some passages from the Talmud that demonstrated what the Rabbis wished to do with the word of God. You can find this in my comments section here - http://hamashiachagape.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-do-i-think-about-replacement.html#comments
The final section of the Bible that is often taken out of context is 1 Timothy 4:4. It is stated here - 4For (A)everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is (B)received with gratitude;" We have to back up one verse to understand this in context. This is ultimate proof that the New Testament actually preaches on kosher law. 1 Timothy 4:3 states " 3men who (A)forbid marriage and advocate (B)abstaining from foods which (C)God has created to be (D)gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." This is in reference to people who do not preach the word of God. Foods which God has created to be gratefuly shared in by those who believe and know the truth again points directly to Leviticus 11 and the Biblical feast days (we shall touch base on this soon). The problem with not eating meat is that it is stated that once every year, we must eat of the passover lamb. Romans 14:1-2 even states " 1Now (A)accept the one who is (B)weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2(C)One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is (D)weak eats vegetables only. " Provisions from abstaining from this law from the Old Testament has repercussions. He who does not follow the custom of the Seder meal is weak in faith. So Kosher law my friends, my brethren and sistren has not been done away with. It is important that we follow these teachings of God, both Jew and Gentile, in the way that God has commanded us to do so. Let us not turn to the left or the right in the matter. I wish you all shalom.
hamashiachagape :)
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
What was Yeshua doing in Luke 4:16-21?
I know I was going to write on the Biblical Feasts, but there is an article I feel moved to write before we get into that direction. It is on the passage on Luke 4. Lets take a look at this in its entire context from verses 16-21. 16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, 19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[a]
20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Now in order to understand exactly whats going on here, we have to look at what Yeshua was doing here. He was quoting from Isaiah. The exact scripture he quotes from is Isaiah 61:1-2. When we read Isaiah 61:1, it states " 1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners" Yeshua gets through the entirety of this verse. Where it gets interesting is in verse 2, Yeshua stops. Lets read what Isaiah 61:2 states - 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn." So upon stopping midway through verse 2, he sits down with all eyes focused on him. He then proclaims that today this has been fulfilled. Why? Because of what I have been talking about on this site. Yeshua has two different functioning roles. The Tanakh clarifies exactly what these roles are. Yeshua clearly presents himself in the light of which role he is going to be fulfilling his first time here. The Rabbis in their teachings believe that the Messiah fulfills two different roles. But the 2nd part by Yeshua was stopped in his reading because he has not yet fulfilled the role of Mashiach ben David. He is as of right now our high priest, not the reigning king of kings on earth. Christians often jump from the point of him being high priest to the king. Well, the role of Mashiach ben David and Yeshua being the king of kings and Lord of Lords is fulfilled in Revelation. So that is why I was a bit critical on Dr. Glenn Miller for calling Yeshua Son of David when he was teaching to the Jews. He is not actually in the role of Mashiach ben David just yet. But he will be upon his 2nd return. Do not forget what happens to Yeshua in Acts 1. 6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Notice he doesn't correct Israel by stating that this will not happen. These people questioning knew what to look for in the Messiah. He is coming back again to restore the kingdom to Israel, in the role of Mashiach ben David. Just an interesting thing to ponder. Have we been presenting the role of the Messiah correctly in the Christian movement?
In the future we will touch base on the role of the healing of lepers and why this is significant in proving Yeshua to be the Messiah that the Jews have been looking for.
20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Now in order to understand exactly whats going on here, we have to look at what Yeshua was doing here. He was quoting from Isaiah. The exact scripture he quotes from is Isaiah 61:1-2. When we read Isaiah 61:1, it states " 1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners" Yeshua gets through the entirety of this verse. Where it gets interesting is in verse 2, Yeshua stops. Lets read what Isaiah 61:2 states - 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn." So upon stopping midway through verse 2, he sits down with all eyes focused on him. He then proclaims that today this has been fulfilled. Why? Because of what I have been talking about on this site. Yeshua has two different functioning roles. The Tanakh clarifies exactly what these roles are. Yeshua clearly presents himself in the light of which role he is going to be fulfilling his first time here. The Rabbis in their teachings believe that the Messiah fulfills two different roles. But the 2nd part by Yeshua was stopped in his reading because he has not yet fulfilled the role of Mashiach ben David. He is as of right now our high priest, not the reigning king of kings on earth. Christians often jump from the point of him being high priest to the king. Well, the role of Mashiach ben David and Yeshua being the king of kings and Lord of Lords is fulfilled in Revelation. So that is why I was a bit critical on Dr. Glenn Miller for calling Yeshua Son of David when he was teaching to the Jews. He is not actually in the role of Mashiach ben David just yet. But he will be upon his 2nd return. Do not forget what happens to Yeshua in Acts 1. 6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Notice he doesn't correct Israel by stating that this will not happen. These people questioning knew what to look for in the Messiah. He is coming back again to restore the kingdom to Israel, in the role of Mashiach ben David. Just an interesting thing to ponder. Have we been presenting the role of the Messiah correctly in the Christian movement?
In the future we will touch base on the role of the healing of lepers and why this is significant in proving Yeshua to be the Messiah that the Jews have been looking for.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
New Post in the coming days
I am sorry I have not had the opportunity to post many articles as of late. I have been doing a lot of school lately and this has hindered my ability to keep up with the blog as much as I'd like. I haven't been able to debate as much as I'd like either on some of the forums that I am active at. When God will have me do these things, I will follow in his instruction. At any rate, I can tell you that the next article that will be coming up will be on the Biblical feasts and what they mean to the body of believers. I will go in the direction that God will have me go in, but as of now, subject to change, it will go over and demonstrate the importance of the feasts and how they have been fulfilled by Yeshua, and will eventually be fulfilled in totality by Yeshua.
Shabbat Shalom,
hamashiachagape
Shabbat Shalom,
hamashiachagape
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Another writing against Supersessionism
This will be expanded upon at a later time, but I'd like to demonstrate really quickly what two of my favorite Christian sources say about the Torah. We will look more on what Replacement Theologians state at a later time. James Patrick Holding is a Christian Apologist who has been active for nearly 20 years in Apologetics. He has a cunning approach to riposte and is his points are exceptional in debating against Fundamental Atheism. The one area I find he is weak in is his understanding of the Torah. In his article www.tektonics.org/lp/lawrole.html he comes to the conclusion that the Torah is not for today because as he states in his own words "What of verses that say the law is "for ever"? The word used in the Hebrew is 'olam and means, not exactly forever, but "in perpetuity." This is interesting. When going to the dictionary, what does "in perpetuity" mean? I have an Accounting degree. One form of a cash payment that we studied is known as a perpetuity, or a consol. Its a form of payment with no maturity date and is paid forever. Wikipedia describes it as follows "A perpetuity is an annuity that has no definite end, or a stream of cash payments that continues forever." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetuity According to http://www.investorwords.com/2481/in_perpetuity.html in perpetuity means "forever." According to free dictionary it means "For an indefinite period of time; forever." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perpetuity Mr. Holding should get a better understanding of what in perpetuity means. I would highly recommend we not play with this word.
Dr. Glenn Miller also has the same take on olam. He was approached with the question here "http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah. "All of this is in direct contrast to the teaching of the New Testament, particularly of Paul and the authors of Hebrews. How can the New Testament teach something contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures and both be inspired and G-d remain immutable?" The simple answer to this question is the only thing that has really changed in the New Testament is that Yeshua's priesthood overtakes the manmade levitical priesthood. That would have been the correct answer. Dr. Miller doesn't reach that conclusion. His opening statement reveals that his issue is with the Torah. "No one [in this paradigm community, remember!] disputes that God's ethical principles of love, fairness, and integrity are part of His eternal character and therefore, ethically normative for creatures of will throughout all the ages. Such principles are inherent within His character, which is--fortunately for us--reliably 'immutable'." Um, so olam means forever here, but not there? The context of the word olam needs to be talked about, not just demonstrating that it can mean a different thing in another context. Prefixes such as ha' and le' or ad' often accomodate the word olam when utilized in the Bible. No, in this paradigm community, we have a problem. This article runs into the problem of the logical fallacy of a double standard. He states that he has found at least 20 examples that olam does not mean forever in the Old Testament. Again, the trap that he falls into is he doesn't fully understand Jewish history and customs. He demonstrates this by calling Yeshua Son of David in another of his articles (while he is that, he never mentions to Jews that he is from the line of David but has not fulfilled the role of Mashiach ben David yet). Further we reach the irony of Dr. Glenn Miller's article in that he is siding with the rabbinical interpretation of the Old Testament! His argument present that the rabbis never interpreted the word olam to mean forever. For instance he lays claim to "Three: Many rabbi's considered vast and important areas of the Law to be annulled or inoperative in the Coming Age. They looked forward to a New Torah, from God through the Messiah, connected sometimes with the New Covenant of Jeremiah (sounds a bit like the NT claims, doesn't it?)" This doesn't make it the case however. And as I've mentioned before, and perhaps Dr. Glenn Miller doesn't know this, the Hebrew word for "New" here is the same that the Jews used for the "renewed moon." More abomination of Jewish customs here - "Obviously the 'as strict as biblical law' (some rabbi's) and 'stricter than biblical law' (Qumran, Jubilees) positions would have a major problem with there being no ark and with non-Israelites being allowed into the priesthood…but that's THEIR interpretive problem (smile)…." When does this ever happen? Non-israelites have never entered into the priesthood. The priest at the current moment is Yeshua. So who in the world is he talking about? The Catholics? Also, he believes that there have been 4 different sets of laws "[This, btw, is one of the main challenges--in my opinion--that later (and modern) followers of "Moses" must face. When it is held that the Law must still be observed, we still must ask the question of 'which version of the Law'? We have--in this simple example of the sanctuary alone--at least four different 'sets of law': Mosaic (ark, tabernacle), Davidic/Solomonic (ark, Temple), Post-exilic (no-ark, Temple--but not built to the same 'revealed' specs as the Solomonic one, though); and Post-NT (no-ark, no-Temple)…It is not enough to say that only the unchanged laws (e.g., diet, Sabbath, festivals?) are to be observed today--this would simply ibe an "admission of guilt"--that (some of) the Law DID change, and that the theological grounding for 'torah immutability' is questionable and/or relative. It is not theologically obvious how one could ever be considered obeying the Law of Moses without a central, earthly sanctuary--even with clever rabbinic hermeneutics, most of which necessarily presuppose a 'change in the surface of the code'. And when you divide the 'surface' (text) from the 'core' (intent/spirit), you immediately fall into the same methodological camp as the early Christians. And, at that point, you're no longer arguing from major theological, structural differences--now you're just 'haggling over details'…] " Really? Does he take into account that these laws have not changed, but only refined? No, the content of the changing of the principles has been completely ignored within this whole writing. He is only utilizing the common ploy of what Replacement Theologians utilize which is that the temple determines whether or not the promises to Israel are to be in place today. The temple is only utilized for certain instances within the Torah, neither having anything to do with the festivals (many which were celebrated in Jewish homes, but could be celebrated at the temple), the Sabbath (what Biblical verse supports the changing of the sabbath based on the falling of the temple? We certainly didn't see this happen with the first fall of the Temple in the Babylonian exile) and kosher law (which again, had nothing to do with the standing of the temple, and is often mentioned by Messianics that even Rav Shaul taught kosher law). What the rabbis state about this is irrelevant. A closer read on rabbinical writings demonstrates that the rabbis believed that God needed to follow the rabbinical commentary, and this demonstrates that there were motives for trying to change the Old Testament that Dr. Glenn Miller has not mentioned in his article. For this reason, one is compelled to take most of what Dr. Glenn Miller says with a grain of salt.
Dr. Glenn Miller doesn't make mention of what we are to turn to if we do not have the Torah. But James Patrick Holding does. He states very directly "If one then happens to ask, "On what basis do you then continue to say that these laws are still valid morally?" -- beyond the "all agree" level of things like murder, and in the category of things like homosexuality and adultery -- " Really, these are all agreed? Seems to me that there is a huge problem with both of these matters even within the church. Secondly, where in the Bible is a democracy stated? God chooses the principles we live by, not man. He continues further "the answer is that when a superior writes a contract, even if you are not a party to it, the contract will still give you an idea what values the superior holds to." So we are under a covenantal relationship that Mr. Holding agrees that we have entered into with God. However, the absurdity can be seen when we take away the covenantal relationship with God, since we are not a party to it anymore. Which covenant do we enter into? If Yeshua is the word, then he becomes the living Torah. Does he then abolish himself? Are we not included into a relationship with God, but then at the same time live by it just because it might make God happy, but we're not exactly sure because it doesn't apply anymore? (how could that be if we are no longer under his contract, wouldn't he be happy that we get rid of these unnecessary habits? Especially if it was a dividing wall as Holding holds Ephesians 2:15 to mean?). What to say of the verses that say that we should worship God forever? Does that mean only a limited time? What about the verses that say God is forever? Does that also mean that he exists for a limited time? Then is God really God? These are some major obstacles that must be faced by Supersessionists, obstacles that can not be overcome. Words have fixed meanings, and one can not apply a definition whenever one feels like it.
The above mentioned gentlemen are very good at giving many arguments. What they both lack is a degree in Ancient Near East Languages. So lets see what someone who does have a degree in ANE languages states. Looking further at someone prominent who has a THOROUGH understanding of Ancient Near East languages (in fact he has obtained a doctorate from New York University), one should take a look at Dr. Michael L. Brown, who in his book Our Hands are Stained with Blood, he takes a look at a few places that utilize the word olam. He makes no question about it, the word means forever in the places that he sites from the Old Testament. I will demonstrate these areas in the days to come, as I quote from his book. He also accurately states that unlike what Dr. Glenn Miller lays claim to, the Orthodox Jewish rabbis have taken claims from the Old Testament out of context time and time again, and have even added different words to the Old Testament to make their claims "more valid." Dr. Glenn Miller may present the rabbis in a light that they were "innocently" doing what they believe was correct, but again, his degree is not concentrated in Jewish studies or in Ancient Near East culture either. Its important to check the background of writers before making a determination of this magnitude regarding the Tanakh.
Lets reiterate what Yeshua states in Mattityahu 5:17-20 "17"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. 18I 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. 19Anyone 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, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For 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." JP Holding and Glenn Miller, you have had some terrific writings in the past that I've admired on various subjects, including the Christ Myth and many other issues too varied to count. Would you join the cause in uniting Jew and Gentile as One New Man, as One in the Body of the Messiah? Let us make sure our knowledge surpasses that of what the Pharisees of our day state in regards to the Torah.
Dr. Glenn Miller also has the same take on olam. He was approached with the question here "http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah. "All of this is in direct contrast to the teaching of the New Testament, particularly of Paul and the authors of Hebrews. How can the New Testament teach something contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures and both be inspired and G-d remain immutable?" The simple answer to this question is the only thing that has really changed in the New Testament is that Yeshua's priesthood overtakes the manmade levitical priesthood. That would have been the correct answer. Dr. Miller doesn't reach that conclusion. His opening statement reveals that his issue is with the Torah. "No one [in this paradigm community, remember!] disputes that God's ethical principles of love, fairness, and integrity are part of His eternal character and therefore, ethically normative for creatures of will throughout all the ages. Such principles are inherent within His character, which is--fortunately for us--reliably 'immutable'." Um, so olam means forever here, but not there? The context of the word olam needs to be talked about, not just demonstrating that it can mean a different thing in another context. Prefixes such as ha' and le' or ad' often accomodate the word olam when utilized in the Bible. No, in this paradigm community, we have a problem. This article runs into the problem of the logical fallacy of a double standard. He states that he has found at least 20 examples that olam does not mean forever in the Old Testament. Again, the trap that he falls into is he doesn't fully understand Jewish history and customs. He demonstrates this by calling Yeshua Son of David in another of his articles (while he is that, he never mentions to Jews that he is from the line of David but has not fulfilled the role of Mashiach ben David yet). Further we reach the irony of Dr. Glenn Miller's article in that he is siding with the rabbinical interpretation of the Old Testament! His argument present that the rabbis never interpreted the word olam to mean forever. For instance he lays claim to "Three: Many rabbi's considered vast and important areas of the Law to be annulled or inoperative in the Coming Age. They looked forward to a New Torah, from God through the Messiah, connected sometimes with the New Covenant of Jeremiah (sounds a bit like the NT claims, doesn't it?)" This doesn't make it the case however. And as I've mentioned before, and perhaps Dr. Glenn Miller doesn't know this, the Hebrew word for "New" here is the same that the Jews used for the "renewed moon." More abomination of Jewish customs here - "Obviously the 'as strict as biblical law' (some rabbi's) and 'stricter than biblical law' (Qumran, Jubilees) positions would have a major problem with there being no ark and with non-Israelites being allowed into the priesthood…but that's THEIR interpretive problem (smile)…." When does this ever happen? Non-israelites have never entered into the priesthood. The priest at the current moment is Yeshua. So who in the world is he talking about? The Catholics? Also, he believes that there have been 4 different sets of laws "[This, btw, is one of the main challenges--in my opinion--that later (and modern) followers of "Moses" must face. When it is held that the Law must still be observed, we still must ask the question of 'which version of the Law'? We have--in this simple example of the sanctuary alone--at least four different 'sets of law': Mosaic (ark, tabernacle), Davidic/Solomonic (ark, Temple), Post-exilic (no-ark, Temple--but not built to the same 'revealed' specs as the Solomonic one, though); and Post-NT (no-ark, no-Temple)…It is not enough to say that only the unchanged laws (e.g., diet, Sabbath, festivals?) are to be observed today--this would simply ibe an "admission of guilt"--that (some of) the Law DID change, and that the theological grounding for 'torah immutability' is questionable and/or relative. It is not theologically obvious how one could ever be considered obeying the Law of Moses without a central, earthly sanctuary--even with clever rabbinic hermeneutics, most of which necessarily presuppose a 'change in the surface of the code'. And when you divide the 'surface' (text) from the 'core' (intent/spirit), you immediately fall into the same methodological camp as the early Christians. And, at that point, you're no longer arguing from major theological, structural differences--now you're just 'haggling over details'…] " Really? Does he take into account that these laws have not changed, but only refined? No, the content of the changing of the principles has been completely ignored within this whole writing. He is only utilizing the common ploy of what Replacement Theologians utilize which is that the temple determines whether or not the promises to Israel are to be in place today. The temple is only utilized for certain instances within the Torah, neither having anything to do with the festivals (many which were celebrated in Jewish homes, but could be celebrated at the temple), the Sabbath (what Biblical verse supports the changing of the sabbath based on the falling of the temple? We certainly didn't see this happen with the first fall of the Temple in the Babylonian exile) and kosher law (which again, had nothing to do with the standing of the temple, and is often mentioned by Messianics that even Rav Shaul taught kosher law). What the rabbis state about this is irrelevant. A closer read on rabbinical writings demonstrates that the rabbis believed that God needed to follow the rabbinical commentary, and this demonstrates that there were motives for trying to change the Old Testament that Dr. Glenn Miller has not mentioned in his article. For this reason, one is compelled to take most of what Dr. Glenn Miller says with a grain of salt.
Dr. Glenn Miller doesn't make mention of what we are to turn to if we do not have the Torah. But James Patrick Holding does. He states very directly "If one then happens to ask, "On what basis do you then continue to say that these laws are still valid morally?" -- beyond the "all agree" level of things like murder, and in the category of things like homosexuality and adultery -- " Really, these are all agreed? Seems to me that there is a huge problem with both of these matters even within the church. Secondly, where in the Bible is a democracy stated? God chooses the principles we live by, not man. He continues further "the answer is that when a superior writes a contract, even if you are not a party to it, the contract will still give you an idea what values the superior holds to." So we are under a covenantal relationship that Mr. Holding agrees that we have entered into with God. However, the absurdity can be seen when we take away the covenantal relationship with God, since we are not a party to it anymore. Which covenant do we enter into? If Yeshua is the word, then he becomes the living Torah. Does he then abolish himself? Are we not included into a relationship with God, but then at the same time live by it just because it might make God happy, but we're not exactly sure because it doesn't apply anymore? (how could that be if we are no longer under his contract, wouldn't he be happy that we get rid of these unnecessary habits? Especially if it was a dividing wall as Holding holds Ephesians 2:15 to mean?). What to say of the verses that say that we should worship God forever? Does that mean only a limited time? What about the verses that say God is forever? Does that also mean that he exists for a limited time? Then is God really God? These are some major obstacles that must be faced by Supersessionists, obstacles that can not be overcome. Words have fixed meanings, and one can not apply a definition whenever one feels like it.
The above mentioned gentlemen are very good at giving many arguments. What they both lack is a degree in Ancient Near East Languages. So lets see what someone who does have a degree in ANE languages states. Looking further at someone prominent who has a THOROUGH understanding of Ancient Near East languages (in fact he has obtained a doctorate from New York University), one should take a look at Dr. Michael L. Brown, who in his book Our Hands are Stained with Blood, he takes a look at a few places that utilize the word olam. He makes no question about it, the word means forever in the places that he sites from the Old Testament. I will demonstrate these areas in the days to come, as I quote from his book. He also accurately states that unlike what Dr. Glenn Miller lays claim to, the Orthodox Jewish rabbis have taken claims from the Old Testament out of context time and time again, and have even added different words to the Old Testament to make their claims "more valid." Dr. Glenn Miller may present the rabbis in a light that they were "innocently" doing what they believe was correct, but again, his degree is not concentrated in Jewish studies or in Ancient Near East culture either. Its important to check the background of writers before making a determination of this magnitude regarding the Tanakh.
Lets reiterate what Yeshua states in Mattityahu 5:17-20 "17"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. 18I 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. 19Anyone 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, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For 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." JP Holding and Glenn Miller, you have had some terrific writings in the past that I've admired on various subjects, including the Christ Myth and many other issues too varied to count. Would you join the cause in uniting Jew and Gentile as One New Man, as One in the Body of the Messiah? Let us make sure our knowledge surpasses that of what the Pharisees of our day state in regards to the Torah.
Monday, May 24, 2010
New Article Tomorrow!!!!
Okay, I'll have a new article up tomorrow. I am going to look at some of the tragic statements of our church today about the Tanakh, and show the tragic underpinnings of what Replacement Theology has resulted in today's churches. Additionally I will also begin more articles on the Talmud, and we will look at differences between the schools of hillel and shammai.
After looking at this we will resume back where we were focusing our attention on and go into lessons on what the Biblical feasts mean and their roles and how to celebrate them. I have to say that I have had to burn a majorly huge golden calf the last couple of weeks. It has been in the form of what some of my most revered Christian Apologists have stated. They have come in the form of supersessionists. Having knowledge to combat against even some of the foremost leading Apologists in this area has cleared the way for me to have a more Biblically foundational vision of what the Bible truly is.
I must also publicly denounce, and I may try to cover this later, my former viewpoints on Preterism as I have determined them to be not Biblically founded. I no longer believe that Nero was the anti-christ. I do not side with Futurism either. The Left Behind series, though the writers hearts seemed to be in the right place, is also not Biblically founded. I believe there is another side that is overlooked by both of these positions that is correct.
After looking at this we will resume back where we were focusing our attention on and go into lessons on what the Biblical feasts mean and their roles and how to celebrate them. I have to say that I have had to burn a majorly huge golden calf the last couple of weeks. It has been in the form of what some of my most revered Christian Apologists have stated. They have come in the form of supersessionists. Having knowledge to combat against even some of the foremost leading Apologists in this area has cleared the way for me to have a more Biblically foundational vision of what the Bible truly is.
I must also publicly denounce, and I may try to cover this later, my former viewpoints on Preterism as I have determined them to be not Biblically founded. I no longer believe that Nero was the anti-christ. I do not side with Futurism either. The Left Behind series, though the writers hearts seemed to be in the right place, is also not Biblically founded. I believe there is another side that is overlooked by both of these positions that is correct.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
What do I think about Replacement Theology or Supersessionism?
This was definitely not something I thought I needed to address. However, the more I've studied on Replacement Theology and supersessionism, the more I believe it needs to be addressed. I would like to begin by stating that this form of theology is outright heresy. I do not believe in taking away anything from the Bible. Deuteronomy 4:2 states 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you." Matthew 5:17-18 equally encouraged by Yeshua states - 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I 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 Torah until everything is accomplished."
Everything has not been accomplished. Heaven and Earth have not passed away. Heaven and Earth will NOT pass away, but in Revelation, the same word for new "hadashah" is once again utilized, so heaven and earth will be renewed. Scripturally there is no argument. However, objections still arise from the side of Replacement Theology.
Two of these I will address today.
Some Christian Apologists assume that Ephesians 2:15 means that the Torah has been abolished. What is overlooked here is that when Christians do this, they are attempting to make a bona fide argument for the Ebionites who think that Rav Shaul's writings should not be followed because they contradict the teachings of Yeshua. So lets take a look at this argument in a fuller sense.
Lets take a look at Ephesians 2:15. What does it say? Look at Ephesians 2:14-16. It states " 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." In English we see from several of the versions it appears that the Torah is that which is being completely abolished according to the New International Version...which is largely associated with the King James Version. I believe the KJV to be a poorly translated version with some strong political motivations (again, good for another article).
Okay, the English Wycleffe version that we have states Ephesians 2:14-16 differently. "14 For he is our peace, that made both one, and unbinding the middle wall of a wall without mortar,
15 enmities in his flesh; and voided the law of commandments by dooms [voiding the law of commandments by dooms], that he make two in himself into a new man, making peace,
16 to reconcile both in one body to God by the cross [that he reconcile both in one body to God by the cross], slaying the enmities in himself. "
Another translation has dooms "by ordinances." What in the world does this mean?
We know from Romans 7:12 that it is stated that the Torah is holy, righteous and good. If its holy righteous and good, then it wouldn't make sense that this is the wall that is the barrier described here. Besides according to Numbers 15, there is no barrier at all, because both Gentile and Jew are under the instruction of God. So it has to be something else. So what is it? When we go back to the Greek we have the answer. According to http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf the word translated from Rav Shaul's writings is "
ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin." Whats interesting to note is that this same expression is utilized in 3 Macabbees 1:3 in relation to the "traditions of our fathers." The Rabbinical laws have been abolished. It is also utilized by Philo and Josephus as translated into the Greek for the same thing. And the term is not utilized in Genesis 26:5 "5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws." So what this must denote is that Yeshua tore down the man made Rabbinic traditions, the halakah, that separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Thus it is worthy of note that the enmity existing between the Jews and the Gentiles was broken down. In order to actually do away with the Torah, the word that Rav Shaul would have utilized in this instance would have been - ha patros nomos. We have also stated several times in some of my other writings a legalistic approach to the Torah vs. the following of the Torah due to love of God.
As Rabbi Eric Carlson, who contributed to Sid Roth's book The Incomplete Church states in a conversation between myself and himself regarding this enmity, "At the point in time that Eph 2 was written, Israel (Jews) had a relationship with God through His written word, just as it is today. Gentiles, were estranged and far off, they had no relationship with God through His written word. Because we had God and Gentiles did not there arose enmity (Hostility-animosity) between the two groups because one had God's word and one did not. The Law (Torah) wasn't done away with. "
Another statement that must be made is in regards to "Olam." Now many Supersessionistic theologians, Dr. Glenn Miller included, will rightfully admit that olam does not always mean forever. It actually means world. BUT LE'OLAM DOES MEAN FOREVER! In his article on olam, he wrongly sides with the Pharisees and the Rabbis who attempt to get rid of the Torah (funny how he never ACTUALLY quotes directly what the Rabbis state in regard to the Torah). In his references from the Talmud, he never states how they attempt to put the Rabbi's words over God's words. Rico Cortez on his website http://www.wisdomintorah.org/ has plenty of mention on the attempts of what the Rabbis were trying to do. There are no loose ends about it. It appears to me he has not formally studied very much on Jewish history. He mentions only the school of hillel, but also seems to completely disregard that there is another school of thought, the school of shammai. The school of shammai has the Pharisees that hated the Gentiles, the ones who Yeshua addresses "Woe to you o Pharisees". Rav Shaul was from the school of shammai. Yeshua was from the school of hillel. Messianic Jews know this, recognize it, and embrace it. He also believes the Pharisees to be "good Jews", but not all of them were. Yeshua who even followed the traditions of the fathers mentions many things that the Pharisees were doing incorrectly. Dr. Miller also does something that I conclude should never be done when addressing Jews. He calls Yeshua "Son of David." What I don't agree with this usage is this. Jews will read that and say, "Hey, we're right, the Messiah hasn't come yet because Mashiach ben David is the Messiah we're looking for." Well Mashiach ben David hasn't come yet. When addressing the Jews, we should utilize terms like, high priest, the tsadiyq, Elohim to get our point across of which role the Messiah has fulfilled up to this point. When Yeshua quotes from Isaiah 61:1-2, he stops in the middle of what he is reading and states "these things have been fulfilled today." We should differentiate the Messiah's roles, since Mashiach ben Yosef has already come (the high priest), and Mashiach ben David (king of kings and lord of lords), the other role of Yeshua, is coming again. For this reason I think Dr. Michael L. Brown or even Rico Cortez is a better resource to utilize on how to witness to a Jew than Dr. Glenn Miller. Again, I generally agree with Dr. Glenn Miller on so much material, but just a few nitpicks that I need to make clear that I believe significantly affects his Theology and even his ability to reach out to Jews. Supersessionistic Theologians actually state wrongly that olam means in perpetuity in hopes that this would mean that it is not forever. There is no difference because in fact, in perpetuity means forever according to Webster's dictionary. Olam can be used in different circumstances, but in reference to God as accorded to something else, olam means forever. When it is utilized in instances regarding a contractual relationship between a man and another man, as it is done in Exodus 21:6, it means for the rest of the existing life of the person involved. So it does mean forever! In the instance of the slave having his ear pierced, what this means is that he will become a part of the family, which makes him a part of that family forever. The existing covenant with God does not change ever. The word of God or the Torah has become flesh. Does the word abolish the word? Does God have an end? If we are to conclude a univocality of the word olam, then he does have a beginning and an end. So this would disqualify the God of the Bible from being God. We know thats absurdity, but it is merely the fault of Replacement theologians. The duration of God is forever, and it follows consequently, since the breath of God (ruach hakodesh) also is eternal, that anything God states is eternal. When God makes a contractual agreement with mankind, it is permanent. Secondly, does God ever completely change his instruction? We have certain areas where points are refined, but at no point is anything necessarily taken away. Even on the sermon on the mount by Yeshua, points are added, but nothing is ever completely done away with (not even on the oaths, because it is mentioned in the Torah that it is not a sin to not take an oath, but nowhere it is stated that it is required to do so. Any oath that is made must be kept however, Yeshua sees no need to swear by an oath, so it is not a sin or a changing of the Torah to state that we no longer need to take one). Third, one point never covered by Glenn Miller on his article is the term "le'olam va'ed" which definitively means forever and forever. This is utilized in reference to God's covenants with Israel, which also includes the Torah. This also is utilized in reference to God. Even a generally accurate source has its flaws :). Most of the material from Glenn Miller is found here -http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html and I have to say I am completely amazed on the lack of attention that he put on the school of shammai, given his generally accurate outlook on the Bible. 90% of this guy's work I'm completely in favor of, and I usually enjoy his attention to detail.
Thus, we have two major flaws within Replacement Theology/Supersessionism that have been covered. I will expand on this later. But the major problem I have with Replacement Theology is straight from the Bible, the verse that proceeds from Matthew 5:17-18. Matthew 5:19 states "19Anyone 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, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." In other words, its an all or nothing!
Everything has not been accomplished. Heaven and Earth have not passed away. Heaven and Earth will NOT pass away, but in Revelation, the same word for new "hadashah" is once again utilized, so heaven and earth will be renewed. Scripturally there is no argument. However, objections still arise from the side of Replacement Theology.
Two of these I will address today.
Some Christian Apologists assume that Ephesians 2:15 means that the Torah has been abolished. What is overlooked here is that when Christians do this, they are attempting to make a bona fide argument for the Ebionites who think that Rav Shaul's writings should not be followed because they contradict the teachings of Yeshua. So lets take a look at this argument in a fuller sense.
Lets take a look at Ephesians 2:15. What does it say? Look at Ephesians 2:14-16. It states " 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." In English we see from several of the versions it appears that the Torah is that which is being completely abolished according to the New International Version...which is largely associated with the King James Version. I believe the KJV to be a poorly translated version with some strong political motivations (again, good for another article).
Okay, the English Wycleffe version that we have states Ephesians 2:14-16 differently. "14 For he is our peace, that made both one, and unbinding the middle wall of a wall without mortar,
15 enmities in his flesh; and voided the law of commandments by dooms [voiding the law of commandments by dooms], that he make two in himself into a new man, making peace,
16 to reconcile both in one body to God by the cross [that he reconcile both in one body to God by the cross], slaying the enmities in himself. "
Another translation has dooms "by ordinances." What in the world does this mean?
We know from Romans 7:12 that it is stated that the Torah is holy, righteous and good. If its holy righteous and good, then it wouldn't make sense that this is the wall that is the barrier described here. Besides according to Numbers 15, there is no barrier at all, because both Gentile and Jew are under the instruction of God. So it has to be something else. So what is it? When we go back to the Greek we have the answer. According to http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf the word translated from Rav Shaul's writings is "
ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin." Whats interesting to note is that this same expression is utilized in 3 Macabbees 1:3 in relation to the "traditions of our fathers." The Rabbinical laws have been abolished. It is also utilized by Philo and Josephus as translated into the Greek for the same thing. And the term is not utilized in Genesis 26:5 "5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws." So what this must denote is that Yeshua tore down the man made Rabbinic traditions, the halakah, that separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Thus it is worthy of note that the enmity existing between the Jews and the Gentiles was broken down. In order to actually do away with the Torah, the word that Rav Shaul would have utilized in this instance would have been - ha patros nomos. We have also stated several times in some of my other writings a legalistic approach to the Torah vs. the following of the Torah due to love of God.
As Rabbi Eric Carlson, who contributed to Sid Roth's book The Incomplete Church states in a conversation between myself and himself regarding this enmity, "At the point in time that Eph 2 was written, Israel (Jews) had a relationship with God through His written word, just as it is today. Gentiles, were estranged and far off, they had no relationship with God through His written word. Because we had God and Gentiles did not there arose enmity (Hostility-animosity) between the two groups because one had God's word and one did not. The Law (Torah) wasn't done away with. "
Another statement that must be made is in regards to "Olam." Now many Supersessionistic theologians, Dr. Glenn Miller included, will rightfully admit that olam does not always mean forever. It actually means world. BUT LE'OLAM DOES MEAN FOREVER! In his article on olam, he wrongly sides with the Pharisees and the Rabbis who attempt to get rid of the Torah (funny how he never ACTUALLY quotes directly what the Rabbis state in regard to the Torah). In his references from the Talmud, he never states how they attempt to put the Rabbi's words over God's words. Rico Cortez on his website http://www.wisdomintorah.org/ has plenty of mention on the attempts of what the Rabbis were trying to do. There are no loose ends about it. It appears to me he has not formally studied very much on Jewish history. He mentions only the school of hillel, but also seems to completely disregard that there is another school of thought, the school of shammai. The school of shammai has the Pharisees that hated the Gentiles, the ones who Yeshua addresses "Woe to you o Pharisees". Rav Shaul was from the school of shammai. Yeshua was from the school of hillel. Messianic Jews know this, recognize it, and embrace it. He also believes the Pharisees to be "good Jews", but not all of them were. Yeshua who even followed the traditions of the fathers mentions many things that the Pharisees were doing incorrectly. Dr. Miller also does something that I conclude should never be done when addressing Jews. He calls Yeshua "Son of David." What I don't agree with this usage is this. Jews will read that and say, "Hey, we're right, the Messiah hasn't come yet because Mashiach ben David is the Messiah we're looking for." Well Mashiach ben David hasn't come yet. When addressing the Jews, we should utilize terms like, high priest, the tsadiyq, Elohim to get our point across of which role the Messiah has fulfilled up to this point. When Yeshua quotes from Isaiah 61:1-2, he stops in the middle of what he is reading and states "these things have been fulfilled today." We should differentiate the Messiah's roles, since Mashiach ben Yosef has already come (the high priest), and Mashiach ben David (king of kings and lord of lords), the other role of Yeshua, is coming again. For this reason I think Dr. Michael L. Brown or even Rico Cortez is a better resource to utilize on how to witness to a Jew than Dr. Glenn Miller. Again, I generally agree with Dr. Glenn Miller on so much material, but just a few nitpicks that I need to make clear that I believe significantly affects his Theology and even his ability to reach out to Jews. Supersessionistic Theologians actually state wrongly that olam means in perpetuity in hopes that this would mean that it is not forever. There is no difference because in fact, in perpetuity means forever according to Webster's dictionary. Olam can be used in different circumstances, but in reference to God as accorded to something else, olam means forever. When it is utilized in instances regarding a contractual relationship between a man and another man, as it is done in Exodus 21:6, it means for the rest of the existing life of the person involved. So it does mean forever! In the instance of the slave having his ear pierced, what this means is that he will become a part of the family, which makes him a part of that family forever. The existing covenant with God does not change ever. The word of God or the Torah has become flesh. Does the word abolish the word? Does God have an end? If we are to conclude a univocality of the word olam, then he does have a beginning and an end. So this would disqualify the God of the Bible from being God. We know thats absurdity, but it is merely the fault of Replacement theologians. The duration of God is forever, and it follows consequently, since the breath of God (ruach hakodesh) also is eternal, that anything God states is eternal. When God makes a contractual agreement with mankind, it is permanent. Secondly, does God ever completely change his instruction? We have certain areas where points are refined, but at no point is anything necessarily taken away. Even on the sermon on the mount by Yeshua, points are added, but nothing is ever completely done away with (not even on the oaths, because it is mentioned in the Torah that it is not a sin to not take an oath, but nowhere it is stated that it is required to do so. Any oath that is made must be kept however, Yeshua sees no need to swear by an oath, so it is not a sin or a changing of the Torah to state that we no longer need to take one). Third, one point never covered by Glenn Miller on his article is the term "le'olam va'ed" which definitively means forever and forever. This is utilized in reference to God's covenants with Israel, which also includes the Torah. This also is utilized in reference to God. Even a generally accurate source has its flaws :). Most of the material from Glenn Miller is found here -http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html and I have to say I am completely amazed on the lack of attention that he put on the school of shammai, given his generally accurate outlook on the Bible. 90% of this guy's work I'm completely in favor of, and I usually enjoy his attention to detail.
Thus, we have two major flaws within Replacement Theology/Supersessionism that have been covered. I will expand on this later. But the major problem I have with Replacement Theology is straight from the Bible, the verse that proceeds from Matthew 5:17-18. Matthew 5:19 states "19Anyone 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, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." In other words, its an all or nothing!
Monday, May 3, 2010
Was Luke really a Gentile? How we know that Luke was really a Jew.
Many people often cite Luke as being the only Gentile writer from the Bible. It is mentioned that his writings are directed to another Gentile who goes by the name of Theophilus. Is this really true?
Lets take a look at why people believe that Luke is a Gentile. Where does this viewpoint come from? This is more of a traditionalistic viewpoint than anything else. The book of Colossians is often cited as a major reason. In Colossians 4:10-11 it states " 10My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me." The point that is attempted to be made is that since Luke is not mentioned as one of Paul's workers for the kingdom of God, it must necessarily follow that Luke is a Gentile. However, it is also recognized that Luke was never mentioned as someone who was actively involved with the preaching ministry. In fact, Luke in Colossians 4:14 is recognized as being Paul's physician. This does not preclude him from being a part of those who were of the circumcision.
A second argument that has been made for Luke being a Gentile is his name. Lucas is recognized as a Roman name. Interestingly enough, all of the people who are mentioned alongside Paul in Colossians 4:10-11 go by Roman names. As a matter of fact, those especially familiarized with the Messianic Jewish movement know that Paul is a Romans name, and that his real name is Rav Shaul. Peter's Hebrew name was Simon. The Jews who lived in the Diaspora used a Jewish name and a Roman name. The Roman name was used for conduct in business and the Jewish name was used while in the synagogue. So this could lend credence to the fact that Luke was simply a Roman name used by someone who was conducting business with a Gentile audience. So the arguments that are made about Luke being a Gentile are flimsy at best.
What arguments do we have that Luke was a Jew? There are several. We'll start with the oracle that Paul talks about in Romans. He states "What advantage has the Jew? “Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2). The rule was that Jews were the vehicle for revelation. With this in tact the burden is now against those arguing for the counterposition.
A second point to consider when evaluating this position is that Gentiles were never brought into the temple. This crime was punishable by death. It has been mentioned that Paul never did bring a Jew into the temple, but Trophimus was a Gentile who got Paul arrested for the belief that Paul was bringing Gentiles into the temple. It is mentioned by Luke that this never happened. He only brought Trophimus to Jerusalem. Being that Luke was not a controversial figure while travelling with Paul in Jerusalem, it must be thought that Luke was a Jew.
A third point is Luke's knowledge of the Temple. He had a very intimate knowledge of the rotating selection of Levitical Priests. He describes the position of the priest before the altar of incense where the angel appears to Zecharia in Luke 1:8-20. This knowledge convinces the author further that Luke was potentially a Levite. The knowledge of the Temple is given by Luke in a more grounded fashion than any writer within the New Testament.
The last point which demonstrates that Luke was a Jew is his intimate knowledge of Mary, the mother of Yeshua. He is able to relate the story of Yeshua's birth from the perspective of Mary and even mentions that he knew what was hidden in Mary's heart (Luke 2:19, 51). This view has led some to believe that Luke may have been the personal physician of Mary as well. Also, Paul never mentions anything regarding the story of Mary. It is therefore, unlikely that he got this information from Paul.
With these points in tact it becomes quite conclusive that Luke was indeed a Jew, not a Gentile.
Shalom,
hamashiachagape
Lets take a look at why people believe that Luke is a Gentile. Where does this viewpoint come from? This is more of a traditionalistic viewpoint than anything else. The book of Colossians is often cited as a major reason. In Colossians 4:10-11 it states " 10My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me." The point that is attempted to be made is that since Luke is not mentioned as one of Paul's workers for the kingdom of God, it must necessarily follow that Luke is a Gentile. However, it is also recognized that Luke was never mentioned as someone who was actively involved with the preaching ministry. In fact, Luke in Colossians 4:14 is recognized as being Paul's physician. This does not preclude him from being a part of those who were of the circumcision.
A second argument that has been made for Luke being a Gentile is his name. Lucas is recognized as a Roman name. Interestingly enough, all of the people who are mentioned alongside Paul in Colossians 4:10-11 go by Roman names. As a matter of fact, those especially familiarized with the Messianic Jewish movement know that Paul is a Romans name, and that his real name is Rav Shaul. Peter's Hebrew name was Simon. The Jews who lived in the Diaspora used a Jewish name and a Roman name. The Roman name was used for conduct in business and the Jewish name was used while in the synagogue. So this could lend credence to the fact that Luke was simply a Roman name used by someone who was conducting business with a Gentile audience. So the arguments that are made about Luke being a Gentile are flimsy at best.
What arguments do we have that Luke was a Jew? There are several. We'll start with the oracle that Paul talks about in Romans. He states "What advantage has the Jew? “Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2). The rule was that Jews were the vehicle for revelation. With this in tact the burden is now against those arguing for the counterposition.
A second point to consider when evaluating this position is that Gentiles were never brought into the temple. This crime was punishable by death. It has been mentioned that Paul never did bring a Jew into the temple, but Trophimus was a Gentile who got Paul arrested for the belief that Paul was bringing Gentiles into the temple. It is mentioned by Luke that this never happened. He only brought Trophimus to Jerusalem. Being that Luke was not a controversial figure while travelling with Paul in Jerusalem, it must be thought that Luke was a Jew.
A third point is Luke's knowledge of the Temple. He had a very intimate knowledge of the rotating selection of Levitical Priests. He describes the position of the priest before the altar of incense where the angel appears to Zecharia in Luke 1:8-20. This knowledge convinces the author further that Luke was potentially a Levite. The knowledge of the Temple is given by Luke in a more grounded fashion than any writer within the New Testament.
The last point which demonstrates that Luke was a Jew is his intimate knowledge of Mary, the mother of Yeshua. He is able to relate the story of Yeshua's birth from the perspective of Mary and even mentions that he knew what was hidden in Mary's heart (Luke 2:19, 51). This view has led some to believe that Luke may have been the personal physician of Mary as well. Also, Paul never mentions anything regarding the story of Mary. It is therefore, unlikely that he got this information from Paul.
With these points in tact it becomes quite conclusive that Luke was indeed a Jew, not a Gentile.
Shalom,
hamashiachagape
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)