Archive for » October, 2011 «

I’ve Had It!

Monday, October 31st, 2011 | Author:

So Moses said to the LORD, “Why have You been so hard on Your servant?  And why have I not found favor in Your sight, that You have laid the burden of all this people on me?  Was it I who conceived all this people?  Was it I who brought them forth, that You should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom as a nurse carries a nursing infant, to the land which You swore to their fathers?’”  Numbers 11:11-12  NASB

Nurse – It happens to the best of us.  There comes a point where we just can’t put up with the obstinacy, stupidity or rebelliousness of others.  Oh, we might still “love” them, but truthfully, we’ve had enough.   We wouldn’t be opposed to seeing them walk off the end of the earth (maybe).  I mean, how long do we have to put up with this? (You might recall that Yeshua said much the same thing about His own disciples.)  That day came for Moses too, and how Moses speaks to YHWH about his feelings is very helpful for all of us when we arrive at the end of the line.

Notice a few of the opening feelings.  Moses begins with his frustration.  “Lord, why are You being so hard on me?”  How often have you voiced the same complaint?  Why do I have to carry these idiots?  What made me their Good Samaritan?  Lord, don’t You realize how exhausting this is for me?  Why don’t I get a vacation?  Moses’ fulfillment of the second great commandment is of no concern at this moment.  The neighbor can go fend for himself!  We rationalize this with the convenient psychological excuse that we need to take care of ourselves if we are going to be any good for someone else.

In Hebrew, the phrase “this people” is quite derisive.  These burdensome, stiff-necked ex-slaves are not my people.  They are someone else’s people, in this case, God’s people.  I am not one of them anymore.  I’ve had it!   When did you reach that point where you drew a line in the sand and stepped on the other side?  Was it when they didn’t agree with you?  Was it when they insulted you or ignored you or asked for one too many favors?  When did your life become a display of us and them?  Moses draws the line.  He is the righteous one.  They are the sinful ones.  Certainly God sees that!

“Did I conceive all these?” is an expression of contempt of lineage.  “Look, Lord.  These are Your people, not mine.  I was pretty happy on the back side of the wilderness with all those sheep.  They followed me.  But not these.  Oh, no!  These are Your people, God, so You will have to be responsible for them now.  I’ve done my part.”  Sound familiar?

And now we come to our linguistic investigation.  Moses recalls God’s commandment.  It is saehu veheqeka ka’asher yisa haomen (“Carry them in your bosom like a nurse”).  But it doesn’t quite say that.  The word omen is a masculine noun derived from the verbal root ‘mn.  So the underlying Hebrew meaning can’t be a female nurse.  Rambam suggests “guardian” rather than nurse.  Some English translations replace “nurse” with “foster father.”  But all of this glosses the deeper insight.  The root ‘mn is the basis of Hebrew ideas like faithfulness, fidelity, steadfastness, nourishment, support and truth.  You would recognize the same root in the word amen.  The haomen is someone who behaves in ways that express God’s unwavering love and concern for His creation, Man.  Moses isn’t being asked to act like a nurse or even a foster father.  He is being asked to act like God!  That’s what it means to carry the obstinate, the ignorant, the foolish, the rebellious.  To act like God would act!  No more, no less.  When God asks us to carry the load for someone else, He is asking us to act in His place with His intentions in His way.  Why would He do that?  How could anyone be expected to do that?

Oh, that answer is easy.  Because He did it for you.

Topical Index:  nurse, foster father, haomen, ‘mn, faithfulness, Numbers 11:11-12

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 17 Comments

A Reasonable Conclusion

Sunday, October 30th, 2011 | Author:

“If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.”  John 8:36  NASB

Therefore – Don’t we love this verse!  I hear it all the time.  “Jesus set me free.”  “I’m free because Jesus died for me.”  The great mantra of the Western world is “Freedom!”  Of course, none of us bother to ask what freedom meant in the biblical context.  We just assume that being able to do what I wish to do is the desired state of human existence.  Freedom becomes a synonym for lack of restraint or hindrance.  With this in mind, we imagine that “Jesus” came so that we might never again be under anyone’s thumb.

There’s just one problem.  Or maybe two.  The first problem is that freedom in the Bible means nothing like unrestrained or complete liberty.  More about that later.  The second problem is that this verse is far too often quoted without the “therefore.”  The addition of the little word oun implies that the statement about being free follows from a previous discussion and it is on the basis of that previous discussion that the terms must be defined.

What is the previous discussion?  It is a conversation between Yeshua and other Jews about the relationship between obedience and sin.  Yeshua tells these Jews that if they became His disciples, they would accept His teaching and would continue to express in their lives what He taught to them.  Then they would be free.  They misunderstand Him, thinking that He is speaking about physical slavery, so they object, claiming that they have never been enslaved by any man.  Yeshua corrects them.  They are in fact slaves to their own behavior, in this case, to the yetzer ha’ra.  He notes that whatever a man practices continually is the master of that man.  So we see that the conversation is not about restraint of physical liberty at all.  It is about the power of the yetzer ha’ra to dictate how men live.  At this point, Yeshua tells the audience that He has the ability to release them from this power.  In other words, the entire discussion is not about doing whatever we wish to do.  It is about being freed from the power of the evil inclination.

And accomplished how is this?  (Think Hebrew verb first, like Yoda).  By keeping His instructions – by following His commandments – by living according to Torah, just as he did.  “If you continue in my word,” says Yeshua.  What does that mean?  Well, for starters it means doing everything He tells us to do, namely, the list of New Testament commandments (which, by the way, assume and endorse the Old Testament commandments).  In biblical terms there is no such thing as unrestrained, uninhibited liberty or freedom.  But there is release from guilt and release from the dominance of the yetzer ha’ra.  This kind of release is a trade.  We trade guilt and corruption for Torah obedience, and in the process we discover that life lived God’s way is a blessing.  Continuing in His word becomes orderly alignment with the grain of the universe.  It isn’t freedom to do whatever I wish.  It is the power to serve as I was designed.

Why are we free indeed?  Because only when we are under the protection of Torah are we able to be who we really are.  And that is biblical freedom.

Topical Index:  free, freedom, John 8:36, therefore, oun, Torah

Just a footnote from Cyndee who does my proofreading.  She said, ” John 8:36:  It’s a good thing I own a hard copy of the 1963 NASB since Bible Gateway AND Blue Letter Bible AND BibleCC ALL quote this verse as ‘so if’!   So much for trusting online translations.  I guess even the 1995 NASB version has translation bias that the general reader won’t pick up on.”

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 2 Comments

Phoenix

Saturday, October 29th, 2011 | Author:

Category: Articles, Pictures  | Tags: ,  | 6 Comments

Dare We Say It?

Saturday, October 29th, 2011 | Author:

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,  2 Thessalonians 2:3  NASB

Lawlessness – Who is the man of lawlessness?  You don’t have to look to much further in the text to realize that Paul is speaking about ha-satan, the one the Lord will slay at his second coming (v. 8).  But when we ask the second question, our answers usually reveal an ignorance of proper biblical exegesis – and the woeful tragedy that follows.

The second question is this:  What does lawlessness mean?

If we answer this second question from our Western perspective, we might include descriptions like “opposed to righteousness,” “evil behavior,” “filled with the works of the flesh (cf. Galatians 5),” or something about being against the acceptable norms of a healthy society.  In other words, we import our view of “law” when we provide a definition.  We draw on the Greek idea of ultimate principles (the Good, the True and the Beautiful), filter them through our Greek-based system of justice and come up with a description that is right at home in our culture.  To be lawless is to be a rebel, an outlaw, a bad person who doesn’t follow the rules.

But this isn’t what Paul means at all!  When we exegete a passage of Scripture, the first thing we have to determine is what the words would mean in the time and culture when they were written.  In other words, what does “lawlessness” mean to Paul and to his readers?  To answer that we have to know something about Paul and his audience.  Paul doesn’t provide a dictionary with his letters because he assumes that the meanings of the word are commonly understood.  How can he do this?  In exactly the same way we do.  We write letters (or emails) and generally assume that the words we use will be understood as we intend them because we share a common culture.  So if we are going to understand Paul’s meaning for anomia (Greek – lawlessness), we must look to the common assumptions of Paul’s culture, not ours.  What do we discover?  It’s almost too obvious to mention.  Lawlessness is living without Torah.  Torah is the Law.  Paul assumes this to be obvious to all who read him.  So to be anti-law is to be anti-Torah.  The man of lawlessness is the man without Torah as the guide of his life, the man who opposes Torah.  And the epitome of the lawless one is ha-satan who rejects all Torah because Torah is God’s way of living.

Is there any believer who would deny this?  I don’t think so.  Satan opposed God, therefore he must oppose Torah.  By opposing Torah he reveals himself as lawless (without Torah).  No problem with this, right?  But now the implication (in case you haven’t seen it coming).  From Paul’s perspective, in Paul’s culture, according to Paul’s understanding of anomia, everyone who stands in opposition to Torah is a son of the lawless one.  What other conclusion can you draw once you realize what the word meant to Paul?  Are you going to claim that Paul didn’t see behavior that opposes the Torah as anomia?  Are you going to insist that Paul had a Greek view of law?  Impossible!  Paul was a rabbi, a Jewish Pharisee.  Law could mean only one thing for him – Torah.  To suggest any other definition is to break the first rule of exegesis.  We can’t import our definitions into texts written two thousand years ago to entirely different audiences.

There’s a little historical note that underscores this view.  The Textus Receptus (the Greek text used in the King James translation) has a different word in this verse.  The TR uses the word hamartias, a word that means “sin.”  Since the TR has been assembled from Greek texts that are later than the fragments of the NA27 (Nestle-Arland 27th edition of the Greek New Testament), this means that at some time after Paul wrote the original, the words were changed to read “sin” rather than “lawlessness.”  But that implies that the translators viewed anomia as a synonym of hamartia.  Lawlessness is sin.  And that means that Paul definition of sin is disobedience to Torah.

Dare we say it?  Dare we say that Christian doctrine that teaches the replacement or abrogation of Torah is anomia, is hamartia?  Dare we say that those who proclaim Yeshua as Savior but who deny the obligation to Torah are really endorsing lawlessness?

This tragic conclusion applies to those who deliberately teach anti-Torah theology and it applies to those who don’t know any better because they have never heard the truth.  It is tragic because it divides the Kingdom and creates massive hypocrisy.  It is tragic because it prevents God’s people from fully experiencing His way of living.  And it is tragic because it didn’t have to happen.

Now what are you going to do about it?

Topical Index:  lawlessness, anomia, hamartia, sin, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Satan

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 14 Comments

Paul of Tarsus, P.A.

Friday, October 28th, 2011 | Author:

Do we then nullify the Law through faith?  May it never be!  On the contrary, we establish the Law.  Romans 3:31  NASB

Nullify/Establish – What in the world is Paul talking about?  Isn’t faith independent of the Law?  Doesn’t the Law simply lead us to faith?  Don’t all those rules and regulations merely point out how much we need to be rescued by grace?  How can Paul possibly say that faith establishes the Law?

One of the biggest doctrinal roadblocks separating Jews and Christians is the Christian view of the Law.  Ever since Origen, Chrysostrom and Augustine, Christian theology has proclaimed that grace set aside the Law.  According to this teaching, the Law was incapable of rescuing men from sin.  It was nothing more than a spotlight illuminating the hideousness of our unholiness.  Fortunately, Jesus removed the curse of the Law in His sacrificial death and we, as Christian believers, no longer live under the impossible demands of those ancient Jewish ways.  Nearly all denominations teach that Paul rejected the primacy of the Torah and converted to Christianity, articulating replacing the Law with grace.

But this verse is a real thorn in the flesh for Law vs. Grace theology.  Paul boldly proclaims that faith makes the Law stand (the Greek verb is histemi).  Faith fixes, makes firm, sets in place, the Law (the Torah).  This claim seems to be 180 degrees from the idea that faith replaces the Law.  What’s going on here?

Did you notice that the crucial verbs in this sentence have a legal ring to them?  “Nullify” (Greek katargeo) means “to render inactive, to cause to cease, to terminate.”  These are just the kinds of words you would associate with a legal contract.  In fact, if I don’t do what is required in the contract, I breach it.  The only way out of a contract is either to fulfill the requirements or to have it rendered null and void.  But notice what Paul says.  Faith does not render the Law (Torah) null and void.  Faith does not set aside the Law.  In fact, Paul is so adamant about this point that he uses the enhanced negative expression me genoito alla (May it never be – but [the strongest form of “but”]).  This is the idiomatic expression “God forbid!”  Anyone who thinks that faith makes the Torah null and void is crazy!

Instead (really with a lot of !!! since it is alla in Greek), faith establishes Torah.  How does faith do this?  Well, if you were Jewish, it would be obvious.  Faith is doing what the Torah requires.  That’s why faith establishes Torah.  By doing what the Torah instructs me to do, I become a living example of the reality of faith.  My trust in God’s word, and the subsequent practice of that word, makes faith obvious to the world.  Do I have faith?  Look at my life!  If I am observing Torah, then you know that I have faith because that’s what faith means.  There is no separation between believing and doing.  If I have faith, I do what God asks me to do.  Conversely, if I am not doing what God asks me to do, then I don’t have faith no matter what I may claim about myself.  Faith is the application of trust in God to my daily behavior.  Faith works.

It’s just like any other legal contract.  I accept the arrangement God offers.  I agree to live by the terms of the contract.  By the way, He didn’t have to offer it to me but He did anyway.  That’s grace.  But faith is fulfilling the contract because I trust what He says.

The Hebrew idea of faith cannot be divorced from obedience.  A person who does not obey does not have faith, just like a person who does not honor a legal contract cannot claim the benefits.  Go ask Paul of Tarsus, P.A.

Topical Index:  faith, Law, katargeo, nullify, histemi, establish, Romans 3:31

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 18 Comments

Segovia

Thursday, October 27th, 2011 | Author:

Category: Articles, Pictures  | Tags: ,  | One Comment

Matthew, Session 88

Thursday, October 27th, 2011 | Author:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(To listen, hit the Play button above, or right-click here, select “Save as…” and download the file to your computer.)

Category: Matthew  | Tags:  | Comments off

Spiritual Grammar

Thursday, October 27th, 2011 | Author:

Mo-deh ani le-fa-ne-ka  The Blessing Upon Waking

Modeh ani – I know you won’t find this in your Bible so don’t bother to look.  But I also know that if you look in your Bible without this, you won’t find anything at all.  We explored the meaning of Mo-deh ani le-fa-ne-ka in August.  Maybe you incorporated this blessing into your daily renewal of life.  I hope so.  If you want to read about the theological implications, you can click here.  But that’s not what I want to mention today.  Today I want to show you something about the grammar of this sentence – grammar that reveals a deep sense of awe and reverence and something more.

The Hebrew phrase Mo-deh ani le-fa-ne-ka is translated “I gratefully thank You.”  It is the first blessing of the day, the moment my eyes open.  But it isn’t literally “I gratefully thank You.”  It is literally:

“Continuously, with regular repetition, with uninterrupted observance (mo-deh)

I (emphatic ani)

set before You, come into your presence – literally at the face – wait in attendance on, bow down before, face (le –fane)

You.” (ka)

But even that isn’t quite right.  You see, in Hebrew the subject (that’s you and me) isn’t separate from the action.  So, in Hebrew this expression really is like saying “the continuously uninterrupted observing set before You in waiting attendance – that action that I call me.”  In other words, I am not some person who sometimes engages in facing the Lord with a grateful heart waiting to serve.  The gratefully-hearted-serving-continuously is who I am!  When I wake, my identity is “continuously in Your presence ready to serve waiting before Your face bowing before You.”  That’s who I am at the first moment of the day.  That’s what makes me me.

Let me give you an example.  There is a woman in our community who had her legal names changed to Truthful LovingKindness.  She isn’t Susan or Sarah or Sally.  She is Truthful LovingKindness.  That’s her identity.  That’s how people know her.  “Today I had lunch with Truthful LovingKindness.  We talked about Yeshua.  I was blessed to have her as my friend.”

When you start the first moment of your day with Mo-deh ani le-fa-ne-ka, you are “continuously in Your presence ready to serve waiting before Your face bowing before You.”  You are the action represented by this phrase.  And you will notice that in Hebrew the phrase doesn’t begin with “I.”  It begins with “continuously, uninterrupted, repetitively”  “I” comes after the action.  “I” is the summation of the verb, not the initiator of the verb.

Today we learned a bit about Hebrew thinking – and we learned a lot more about how we see ourselves.  Are you the actor who is separate from the actions you decide to take or are you the summation of the actions, the evidence of all those verbs?  What is your name?

Topical Index:  gratefully, mo-deh, blessing on waking, grammar, ani

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 9 Comments

Context of the Community

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 | Author:

forsaking the right way they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness,   2 Peter 2:15  NASB

Balaam -  OK, so Peter uses a reference to someone in the Tanakh in order to demonstrate the misguided path of the false teachers.  So?  Before we see exactly why he chooses this particular person, we must notice the contrast he is creating.  “Forsaking the right way,” says Peter.  Now what do you suppose that means?  It certainly implies that the right way is known.  As the authority figure in the Jewish Messianic movement in Jerusalem, what would the right way mean to him?  We don’t have to guess.  From the books of Acts and the conversations between Paul, Peter and James, we know what the right way is.  It is the “so-called sect of Judaism” called The Way.  And what is The Way?  James tells us that it is a recall to Torah observance on the basis of the atonement of Yeshua (see Acts 21:20).  Additionally, the right way is certainly a Greek translation of the Hebrew idea of derek, the path, the way of God’s instruction.  If Peter is Jewish, then the “right way” must be understood according to the meaning of those words in his culture and time.  Eutheian hodon is the “straight, level, upright, true” rule of life, all incorporated in the Hebrew expression derek, and derek is an idiom for Torah-observant.  Peter issues this warning about forsaking Torah.  (There is a strong allusion here to the Tanakh’s use of forsaking, a word used to describe Israel’s apostasy and idolatry, i.e. when Israel stopped following Torah).

Now we’re ready for Balaam.  His story is found in Numbers 22-24.  He was not an Israelite but he evidently knew YHWH. He was hired by a foreign king to pronounce curses on Israel.  He was a prophet for profit.  We know the story of Balaam’s donkey probably better than we know Balaam’s story.  If you read the whole account, you will find that Balaam’s relationship with YHWH is difficult and confusing.  Does Balaam really follow God’s instructions or does God use Balaam for His purposes in spite of Balaam’s belligerence?  Peter applies this story to his warning because he sees personal gain as one of the key motivations.  Why did Balaam go to King Balak after the first encounter?  Peter suggests that Balaam’s motivation wasn’t a purely prophetic one.  By application, Peter is now warning those who are being persuaded to leave Torah that the real motivation of these false teachers is personal gain, not humble obedience.

Of course, the wages of unrighteousness might include a very long list in addition to finances.  Paul provides some potent words about these wages in Galatians 5.  Today he would probably include notoriety, power, status, prestige, possessions, acclaim and personal advantage.  The “right way” doesn’t pursue any of these.  The “right way” begins and ends with the love of God and the love of neighbor.  Anyone who demonstrates core motivations other than those two might be a relative of the son of Beor.  To follow YHWH is to live according to the right way.  Anything else is like walking behind Balaam’s donkey.

Topical Index:  Balaam, Numbers 22-24, 2 Peter 2:15, right way, derek

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | One Comment

The Fisherman’s Warning (2)

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011 | Author:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.  2 Peter 2:1 NASB

Destructive heresies – What are “destructive heresies”?  How would Peter understand his Greek words, haireseis apoleias?  The word hairesis has an interesting background.  Its classical Greek background yields meanings like “seize, take, win.”  The LXX uses it for the idea of “choice, resolve.”  Josephus uses the word to contrast sects within Judaism.  Those who choose another way, another school of thought, another teacher are “heretics.”  But the word doesn’t take on the technical sense of “contrary to acceptable doctrine” until the early Church fathers.  From that point on in Christianity, heresy becomes anything not officially sanctioned by the Church.  By the time Constantine declares Christianity Rome’s official religion, those who held an Hebraic worldview were classified heretics.  But for Peter, hairesis describes people who seek to create a separate community, a community that departs from the ways of Torah.

What about apoleias (“destructive”)?  The assumed root of this word is apollymi, a word that means “to destroy, to abolish, to put to an end in ruin, to render useless.”  It has a violent tone when it is used for “to kill, to put to death, to be utterly lost.”  What kind of separatism would be described with such a term?  If Peter is the unifier that Paul is, then the answer would have to be, “Any teaching that irreconcilably divides the community.”  And nothing would divide the Jewish Messianic community more than the denial of Torah.

Wait!  You might say that what Peter has in mind here is the heresy of denying the divinity of Christ.  Doesn’t he go on to say, “even denying the Master who bought you”?  Isn’t that that ultimate dividing line?  And if this is true, then the Jews who denied Jesus are the real heretics, right?

Not so fast.  First, Peter is addressing the community of those who have already accepted Yeshua as the Messiah.  The false prophets will arise within that community, a community that is Torah observant because it rests on a Jewish understanding of the world.  Since those in the community embrace Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah, and that’s what makes them a community, how do false prophets get any mileage by denying the very reason for the community members’ affiliation?

Secondly, the conjunction kai, here translated as “even,” is usually translated “and.”  On what basis is the translation “even” rather than “and’?  Doesn’t translating kai as “even” shift the “heresy” from a teaching that affects the community and denies the redemptive efficacy of Yeshua’s act to a heresy that is only about Yeshua’s sacrifice?  What if the heresy Peter has in mind is the same one Paul deals with in Galatians, one common to the community in the first century?  That heresy was the attempt by some legalistic Jewish schools to claim that all believers in YHWH must first become Jews before the favor of God could rest upon them.  Paul fought this heresy tooth and nail.  If Peter is facing the same pressure (and why wouldn’t he?), then the destructive heresy is the proclamation that Torah obedience is essential for salvation.  This teaching would split the community and deny the atonement of Yeshua.  Torah obedience is not necessary for God’s grace to be poured out.  But it is necessary if we are going to live to the maximum potential God has in store for us, if we are going to fulfill His purposes in us after we have been shown grace.  The misunderstanding of the place of Torah caused all sorts of problems in Galatia and Rome, as Paul’s letter clearly attests.  Why would we imagine that same issue, the biggest issue facing the community in the first century, namely “How does a Gentile become part of God’s Kingdom?” be any different for Peter?

What divided the community two thousand years ago still divides the community, thanks to hundreds of false teachers (many of whom are totally ignorant of this historical development).  It’s time to change all that.

Topical Index:  destructive heresies, haireseis apoleias, 2 Peter 2:1

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , ,  | 15 Comments
« Previous Entries