A Personal Savior?
Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to them, “These are the things that the Lord has commanded you to do:” Exodus 35:1 NASB
Congregation – In this verse, Moses uses both Hebrew words associated with the Apostolic Writings’ use of the Greek ekklesia. In other words, Moses employs qahal (to assemble) and ‘edah (congregation) in order to call together the entire group of YHVH’s chosen. But Moses is not gathering a church, in spite of the fact that the Greek ekklesia is usually translated that way. Why is the assembly called by Moses not an Old Testament version of the “Church”? Because the philosophical basis of the Greek idea of “church” is radically different than the Hebrew idea of ‘edah.
In Hebrew thought, ‘edah and qahal are collective. The words describe the whole group of the people as one unified community. “Judaism is a collective faith. Despite its principled attachment to the dignity of the individual, its central experiences are not private but communal. We pray together . . . we mourn together . . . we confess together. There are moments when the fate of the individual is expressly separated from the group but they are rare. . . But for the most part the assumption of biblical thought is that the people prosper together and suffer together, because ‘All Israel are responsible for one another.’”[1]
The Church, especially Evangelical Protestants, is precisely the opposite. Faith is personal, individual and private. “Jesus saves me,” and unless I make a personal confession, I am not one of His own. The philosophy behind this change is thoroughly Greek. “Man is the measure of all things” is not a communal statement. It is a declaration of the supremacy of the unique individual. God’s word is all about me, to save and bless me. In Hebrew thought, I exist in the relationships I share with others. I am you (plural). In Greek thought, I exist apart from others. I am me (singular). This also affects the way I think about God. In Hebrew, God is the God of the collective. He is for Israel on behalf of Israel committed to Israel. In Hebrew thought, it is God and His ‘edah. In Greek thought, the reason God exists is to help me. In a nutshell, evangelical Protestant Christianity is religiously rationalized selfishness.
The idea of a “personal” Savior was invented in the early 20th century by famous evangelists. They caused a shift in perspective that has affected the Church in dramatic ways. But they didn’t arrive at this invention without historical precedent. They merely articulated in practice what was present in theory as soon as the early Church abandoned its Jewish collective consciousness. And we won’t recover what was lost without deconstructing the theology and the philosophy behind it. When we stop being about me entirely, we just might be able to return to the experience of the fist century followers. That won’t happen as long as we serve a “personal” God.
Sacks offers a crucial insight. “World Jewry is small, painfully so. But the invisible strands of mutual responsibility mean that even the smallest Jewish community can turn to the Jewish people worldwide for help and achieve things that would be exceptional for a nation many times its size. When a people join hands, becoming even momentarily ‘like one body with one soul’, they are a formidable force for good.”[2]
That is the point of it all, isn’t it? We are thousands of fractured souls in denominational caves and theological cells. Every one of us alone. What must happen is holding hands, across the divide we have created, so that we are no longer by ourselves. “It is not good for man to be alone,” means you and I must refuse the philosophy of individualism and accept divine responsibility for the other person. There is no “me” in ‘edah.
Topical Index: ‘edah, assembly, qahal, Exodus 35:1, personal, collective
[1] Jonathan Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World, p. 87.
[2] Ibid., p. 95.
Since we’re dealing with words, ekklesia is Greek for Assembly. BUT! Kyriaton is Greek for house of the Lord. Jesus said He came to build his ekklesia, not his kyriaton. The Roman Catholic Church changed ekklesia to kyriaton and in so doing changed assembly, the called out ones, to, “the house of the Lord.” From there church became building centric and changed what Yeshua said.
To understand what it means to be a called out one, we must consider Luke 4: 18-19 as all of our spiritual autobiographies begin here.
However, a question. Based on what you wrote above, Skip, how do you lead someone to commit to following Yeshua and to be conceived from above? Matthew 28: In your going, lamad the goyim.
Take a look at my lecture on the Hebrew view of evangelism.
Oh, I like that Sacks quote! This writing is so provocative, I am going to have to chew (meditate) all day on how many things it clears up for me! Thank you!
You know, I think the whole problem must be centered upon the ‘dialectic’ (another made-up word for ‘evil’ that I have included in Laurita’s Dictionary, alongside my favorite definition of evil: “it don’t make no sense!”) that the Church started when they changed the Called Out Ones (thank you, Peter Alexander) to the You Better Stay In Here Or Be Annihilated Ones (excommunication). Once you got THAT backwards, then the dialectic pendulum could begin to swing, could it not?. The opposite (dialectic) of the You Better Show Up To The Building is this idea of the rugged individualist, running out of the burning building to save his own skin. The legacy of the Protest that we are left with is surely this inclination to splinter from the assembly as soon as anything starts to look ‘incorrect’. Somewhere in there, we got taught that that is the only ‘righteous’ thing to do! BUT, where is the precedent in scripture for this?
The King James Bible was a bone tossed to the Puritans (whom we love to despise now), (thank YHVH for their tenacity, and for that Word, however faulty) but the Puritans did not want to run – they wanted to reform, did they not? The Diet of Worms, and I am no historian, was about so much more than we usually think of it. Wasn’t it there that the Catholic Church almost got enough votes to vote to turn the tide away from using the Scripture AND tradition to Solo Scriptura as its foundation? There were many in the Church who were tired of the sin and evil that the ignoring of the Law was engendering. They wanted to purify the church. I was taught that there was one small detail that threw the whole reform thing in the garbage; and this thing is reprehensible. This was a legal court, using legal methods, and one of those methods was taking into account the practice of what the dissenters were preaching. The practice, specifically, that was called into question, was about the Sabbath. IF the Reformers were correct, then they would have to be practicing the Sabbath; so the verdict came down. The fact that they were still worshiping on Sunday, which the Catholic Church has always maintained that it has changed SOLELY on tradition, was what was used to shoot the whole case into the trash. It was after that that the Protest started, and surely it was that that doomed the splinters to just copying what they were fighting; namely, the establishing of yet more rival ‘houses’ in defiance of the Mother House. These disobedient daughters, which is what the Catholic Church refers to the Protestants as, are now being actively courted through ecumenism to return to the Big House, are they not? And because they did not commit to fully obeying Sola Scriptura, are they not doomed to return?
What I am reflecting on is how we Protestants were set up from the beginning to react to the WRONG thing (the Big House is wrong, so we must be right), instead of realizing that, because we were not committed to actually doing what we said we were doing (following Sola Scriptura), and seeking to STAY TOGETHER, we would eventually find ourselves in the inevitable ‘synthesis’ (another word that Laurita protests as a blatant mis-use of a perfectly good word) that the dialectic is designed to set us up for. The only protection we are ever going to have against a mis-use of the Assemblying of the Saints (forcing us to return to the same disobedience of the Law that the Mother is still practicing under, through the means of ecumenism), is for us to get together against that mis-use: but the only true protection against the abuse of power is going to be when we forsake the temptation to go and do likewise, with our own Houses and Towers of Power. What we fight, we will ultimately lose against. Thus is the baleful result of the dialectic. The devil knows what he can SEPARATE, he can conquer!
When will we learn that we are all going to have to pull together, but the only boat that will float us all is the boat of the Law? Not the law determined by scripture AND tradition, which, if you look closely, is the basis for all those daughter denominations equally as it is with the Mother House (doctrine), but the Law alone, as it was given to us from a “house not made by human hands” (Acts 7:48). Amen.
Laurita, nice post!
In the interest of accuracy, I do not think the “Diet of Worms” is the meeting you are looking for but you are close in your time frame. For everyone’s information, Worms is a town in Germany where the Holy Roman Empire held their meetings. Their most famous Diet (assembly) was held in 1521 where Martin Luther addressed the meeting in response to the charges of heresy against him. This Diet was not a meeting of Catholic prelates.
If I have time later in the day I might try to smoke out the synod of the Catholic Church that fits your description. I am aware of one such meeting that was called by the church to honestly review their handling of the Reformation debacle. All I remember from my studies of Sabbath history is that at that meeting a famous Italian Cardinal remarked that the Reformers had not truly broken away from Catholicism in their attempts to embrace “sola scriptura” as the Protestant groups continued to hold on to Sunday sabbath keeping – a tradition established by the Catholic Church, not the Scriptures
In my book, that indictment by the Cardinal of most all of Protestantism and Evangelical church groups still stands to this day!
Perhaps another reader can show us the specific church synod you were looking for?
Thank you, John. That would help me a lot! The ole memory doth fade a little around the edges!
I guess what I really wanted to say was that it seems pretty clear to me that the first thing we did wrong was to quit going to the synagogues for worship. It just looks all down hill from there! Once you start the splinter thing, it ends up being a slippery slope of ever more increasing fracture. We were wrong to “forsake the assembling of ourselves together”. There. In that place. The place we were told to not forsake assembling. In fact the only time in scripture that I see this subject come up is when Yeshua foretold that those who THREW US OUT OF THE SYNAGOGUES would think they were doing God a favor, but what have we been doing lately that would get us thrown out; us who take off like a shot long before anybody gets around to thinking they should toss us? We were never told that we should leave on our own. In fact, the way I read it, we were told specifically that we were to stay until we got CALLED OUT by the angel in Revelation, which is the only other place that I can find the subject. And that, obviously, is not until the whole place has completely become Babylon – the world. Well; perhaps almost there!
Hi Laurita,
Just a note about the Puritans as there seems to be some confusion – they attempted to reform the English Anglican Church, in the 1500’s through the early and mid-1600’s, at which time they emigrated to Massachusetts Bay Colony. The English Anglican Church, as established by Henry VIII, was essentially just the Catholic church without the Pope. It was after Henry created the split that Protestant teachings really began to take hold in England. But after decades of back and forth between extreme Catholic or extreme Protestant rulers, most of the people just wanted someone who wouldn’t be extreme, and so there was substantial support when the moderately Protestant Elizabeth I took the throne. Under Elizabeth’s rule, the Puritans thought there was an opportunity to reform the Anglican Church from the inside.
The Puritans stayed in the Church of England until the reign of Charles I drove them out (mid 1600’s). They should not be confused with the Separatists, who actually defied royal edict during the Elizabeth years and left the Anglican Church. Elizabeth didn’t like extreme Catholics or extreme Protestants, so she tried to walk a middle ground and thus the Church of England became a mongrel version of both. The Separatists, who realized the Church could not be restored, defied Elizabeth and English law which required all subjects to attend the one State Church every Sunday. They suffered religious persecution during Elizabeth’s reign, which drove the main group to seek refuge in Leiden, Holland. During this time, Holland was seen as a safe haven for religious freedom and was the home for a variety of religious groups that were 7th day Sabbath keepers and followers of the OT. It’s possible that the Separatists found support among these groups for their own convictions.
Part of the reason the Separatists decided to leave Holland in 1620 was because the Dutch treaty with Spain was expiring in 1621, and they were thus at risk for the Spanish Inquisition if Catholic Spain resumed control of Holland. If a New World colony had hopes of success, the Leiden congregation knew they would need a skill set other than just their own, so they recruited some English farmers and craftsmen, of the moderate (lukewarm) Anglican persuasion, to join their venture. The mixed group became known in history as the Mayflower Pilgrims who settled at Plymouth in 1620.
Of interesting note, the Separatists did not celebrate “Christian” holidays such as Christmas. In fact, there is an account of a brouhaha, early on, when the Anglicans refused to work on Christmas, preferring to “party” according to English custom. The Governor allowed them the freedom to follow their “religious conscience” and not work, but he removed all “party” implements from their celebration saying, they didn’t have to work, but he could see no reason they should be merry-making while the others were working.
I haven’t found anything yet that unequivocally shows the Separatists were Sabbath keepers, but there is some suggestion that the timing of the first Thanksgiving in the Autumn of 1621 was chosen by the Separatists, not just because the colony had survived the year, but because it was Sukkot, and it was seen as especially valid to give thanks for the provision of God in that season.
(This era is a particular interest of mine because my ancestors were among those who fled to Leiden and later made the trip to Plymouth in 1623 on the Anne.)
Suzanne, are you familiar with the Sabbatarian groups that made their home in Rhode Island. It seems that Rhode Island State government took a position that protected Sabbath keepers from some of the hostilities that came from some Sunday church leaders labeling them “followers of Moses rather than Jesus Christ”. (What else is new!)
Of course, that time frame would have been much later that the Mayflower arrival but it was significant in that the Rhode Island group were foundation of what later became known as Church of God 7th Day and the Seventh Day Adventists.
Thanks John — yes, I have read a bit about them. There were a number of Sabbath-keeping groups during that era in England, Holland and the English/American colonies, but they seemed, for the most part, to merge into something else or just died out. I have to wonder why? Was it just too hard to keep going against the mainstream in the political or religious climate of the day; or did they literally die out because of persecution or because the younger generation didn’t pick it up? It’s something I’d like to study in depth someday, because I think there are lessons for us.
October 1, 2014, in the year of our Lord has been changed to October 1, 2014, in the year of My Lord, and has been so subtle through the years…….and we didn’t even see it coming……..you hit the nail on the head. Thank you Skip!
Skip, I appreciate this emphasis and reminder that we were created and called to be communal, not merely individual. But, isn’t there still a place for a relationship with God on a “personal” level? Isn’t it a both/and proposition rather than an either/or? After all, we are going to be judged as individuals (as well as by groups). And I know there is a Scripture somewhere in the prophets that refers to one’s teeth being set on edge for one’s own eating of sour grapes (not for the parent’s eating of sour grapes). Don’t we have to careful in correcting one bad theology that we don’t create another bad one (the ‘ole swinging of the pendulum thing)?
Yes, we are judged as individuals when the issue is guilt. The guilt of the fathers does not pass to the children and visa versa. So there is a sense in which I have a personal relationship with the Father. But I don’t think that element overrides the communal aspects of Scripture. Greek thought is entirely individualistic. An assembly is a collect of individuals. But in Hebrew thought, I exist BECAUSE of my relation to the community. Anyway, more to be said about this later.
It’s Personal
An assembly is a collect of individuals, (of which, I am one). This is who I* am: One among many. One “adamah” among many “adams.” And Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I* am chief! The good news (the gospel) of the Messiah has found its’ mark in one man, – “me.”
Adam was “a” man. Eve was “a” woman. Each were individuals, yet collectively they made up a family. The first family. Each (and both) were sinners and rebelled against Elohim. (agreed?) The consequences of this rebellion? So long Paradise. Since God is (infinitely) holy, and Light cannot abide with, (but always conquers!) darkness- these two “sinners” were booted out of Paradise- (and) had the rest of their natural born days to think about it- “where did we go wrong?” – Perhaps a little “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth?” And not even to mention- (surely there was a continual contention between the two!) – the beginning of “the blame game!” (Eve, you know..- this is all your fault!) Adam, -let me know how this works out for you! lol! Sin separates. (for realz!).
But, (don’t you love that word!!) But, ~ God was in Christ, -reconciling the world unto Himself! ~ Oh? Tell me more.. Tell me- “The Story”..- again.
“It is written.” ~ Now all these things are from God, who (has) reconciled us to Himself through Christ and has given unto us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.. ~ (2 Corinthians 5.18-20)
So.. I would ask this “collect” (this group of individuals) – is it possible for a man (an adamah)- “any man” (sinners r us) to be reconciled (at peace) with God? “If ” God is holy? There is no “if” about it! May I try again? “Since” God is holy.. (much more gooder!) And? “if” man (we adamahs) is sinful? Are we all “sinners?” Have we lost all sense of sin sensitivity? What is sin? Simply put, – (and scripturally put!), God says “do”- we don’t, and God says “don’t” – yet we do!. We are (without one shadow or peradventure of doubt in this man’s finite mind!) “sinners all!” Do we need an historical review? Do we need to open our eyes and look around a bit? Seen the evening news lately?
How about these “individuals?” (We report, – you decide.) Adam? sinner. Eve? sinner. Noah? sinner. (mighty) Moses? sinner. – Need we continue? There’s plenty more! We could “begat” this man and that man and never run out of “exhibit A’s!” Friend, sinners r us. (The bad news)
How about some “good news?” I’m ready (so ready) for some good news!
How about *you? Anyone? Well here it is: ~ God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself ~ (2 Corinthians 5.19)
Friend, where?- and when? did this occur? At Calvary. The Tslav of The Messiah is the place where one sinful man may be reconciled to one holy God.
This is a faithful saying and worthy of “all” acceptance: ~ Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners- of whom I am chief ~ (1 Timothy 1.15)
In God’s own words, – we have tHis invitation: ~ “Whosoever will,” -may come.
~ The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one (any one) who desires take the water of life without price. ~ (Revelation 22.17)
~ And we have this (universal, yet personal) invitation from the Son of Man: ~ Come unto Me- “all” you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you* rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of Me, for I AM meek and lowly in heart, and you* will find rest for your souls ~ (Matthew 11.28)
Hey Carl,
We also have this invitation found in Rev 3:20:
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears
My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine
with him, and he with Me.”
How much more personal can you get?!
But the point is not that there is no personal connection between the Master and the servant or between YHVH and His children. The point is that when personal relationship trumps all other relationships, we leave the biblical context behind. The point is that there is no loving God without involvement and love for others. There are no Robinson Crusoe’s in the Bible. The contemporary emphasis on my “personal” salvation is egocentric Greek metaphysicals disguised as biblical thought. Who are you? A single, stand-alone, independent believer or one of a community of the called?
Your point is clear. It’s just hard to imagine anyone who is truly called
of God to love and obey Him, would yet still stand alone. Obviously it
could happen I suppose, but is it the fault of contemporary Greek
metaphysics, or something much bigger?
perhaps rather than focus on your experience we should look at the historical record of the church especially after the introduction of “personal” salvation. How many people came forward during the Billy Graham and Dwight Moody days? How many people made confessions of faith in the mega-churchs like Willow Creek? Does the culture show any significant difference as a result of those millions? Why not? They all confessed a personal salvation? What did that mean for their commitment to the Kingdom on earth?
You and I and Billy Graham know full well there’s a world of difference
between “confessions of faith” as you called it and the reality of receiving
the true conviction of God’s calling.
Oswald Chambers writes: “Their eyes are open, but they have received
nothing. Conversion is not regeneration . . . In sanctification, the one who
has been born again deliberately gives up his right to himself to Jesus Christ,
and identifies himself entirely with God’s ministry to others.”
Those truly committed to the Kingdom have always been in small numbers.
“and there are few who find it.”
Yes, we probably agree that very few “conversions” result in true regeneration. So how do we make people aware of that? Could we start by pointing out the NECESSITY of caring for community?
Very well said, Skip!
I have always been struck by the example of the brethren in the formative days of the Church found in Acts 2:44-47
“And all who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.”
Talk about community! The love and the joy they shared was contagious to the point that outsiders wanted a part of the action and so the church was growing daily!
Then there is also Paul’s command to not ignore our responsibility to spend time fellowshiping together! The Lone Ranger needs to take off his mask when he comes into the Body of Messiah,
This understanding is so compelling! It does call us to such a way of truly living!