Clothes Make the Man
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. Psalm 51:2 NASB
Wash – Clean clothes! Not clean body. Let’s be sure we appreciate the difference. Kabas is the Hebrew verb for “to wash, to be washed, to perform the work of the fuller,” that is, to launder clothing in cold water until it is clean and soft. But this is never used about bodily cleaning. That verb is rahats. David is not asking to be bathed. He is asking that his garments be cleansed.
This seems quite extraordinary. I am sure David did not need his royal robes cleaned at YHVH’s laundry. What he needs is a clean heart, a heart washed white as snow. What he needs is the stain of sin removed. But sin does not attach itself to one’s clothing (there are Torah exceptions, however). So why doesn’t David say, “Bathe me”? Why focus attention on the external rather than the internal?
Perhaps regard to the ancient Near East culture helps us answer. First, the culture is about public reputation. Public reputation is the outside, visible evaluation of one’s character. David’s sin has public consequences. The entire point of this song is a public confession. Everyone knows what David attempted to keep secret. The stain is, in fact, on the royal robes. What David asks is a restoration of his public persona. To be cleansed from sin is to be publicly restored. We misunderstand David’s use of kabas if we read this verse from the perspective of a Greek, inner-man, seat of consciousness point of view. In the ancient Near East, sin shows. Forgiveness must deal with sin’s public impact, especially for a king.
Secondly, David may be imagining himself as the conjunction and combination of an inner self manifested as an outward person. In Hebrew thought, the inside of the cup must be cleansed before the outside can sparkle. So clean clothes mean nothing on top of dirty skin. The plea for exterior cleansing implies interior purification. Washing thoroughly (the Hebrew adverb harbeh is in the primary position) suggests both public and private actions. The adverb itself, raba, implies magnitude. This is a great washing, beyond the ordinary daily laundry load. Extra soap, extra rinse, extra spin. Spare nothing to get all the dirt out.
David’s parallelism uses the verb taher. The majority of its occurrences are in relation to the priests who serve the Lord. The meaning is to render something pure, that is, undefiled so that it may be used in sacrifice. How was taher determined? By the absence of exterior spot or blemish. The outside reflects the inside. Pure on the outside assumes pure on the inside. Assessment of external behavior is an appropriate evaluation of internal purity. What others see is a true measure of who you really are. Paul says much the same. And how are you to determine what others see? Ah, you will have to ask them, won’t you?
Topical Index: kabas, taher, raba, wash, cleanse, thoroughly, Psalm 51:2
Yep, Skip, the church regularly goes out into the highways and byways with the mission of determining whether or not they have achieved righteousness by asking the common lost person to tell them if they have, and then using that as the basis of knowing if they have. Wait: that’s not the regular mission statement! I think it is a powerful thing; public pressure is, and it can work the wrong way just as powerfully. If the community defines sin by its own definition, then you can get people burning on street corners for righteousness, too. Yeshua, after all, was just another mad messiah with the added twist that, in answer to His public challenge, no one could convict Him of sin, but; also, by public outcry, because He claimed to be God, under a charge of blasphemy of the highest sort, that One had to go!
Untold millions perished in the Spanish Inquisition, and other pogroms, under public charges of heresy, for refusing to kiss the wafer and acknowledge the sacrilegious transmutation of the Mass. Spain lost its flower and the finest of its own, and it never recovered. France, learning nothing from Spain, did it to herself later in the Revolution, and then Russia and Germany, eager to also lose all their finest genetic, moral and intellectual own, couldn’t follow suit fast enough. All in the name of righteousness, of course. But, righteousness defined by whom? The state? The church? Yes, the community has a responsibility to keep sin out, but how is that done correctly, and who is the final determiner? The local paper here, just this week, tells the story of a little rural church that got a fine new pastor sent from headquarters, who, basically, came in and changed everything these people had known they believed in. Many of them left in protest, but their oldest member, a precious and firmly set in her faith lady aged 103, held her ground. She protested the changes, but refused to bow out. This is her church. So, last Sunday, after she came to church even though she got a letter from the pastor kicking her out, and signed by 7 other mealy-mouthed deacons (the paper printed a picture of the letter), the pastor called the law on her! The local sheriff responded that it was a civil matter, whereupon the pastor shut down the service, turned off the lights and dismissed the congregation. She was left sitting alone in the dark. What a lady!
Hmm. Perhaps we may be better off these days asking that common lost person if we are doing right or not!
“by public outcry, because He claimed to be God, under a charge of blasphemy of the highest sort, that One had to go!”
Hi. Please explain, if you will, where/how Yeshua claimed to be God.
This is a difficult topic for me these days. I’m curious how this statement is explained and described by various camps of thought.
I understand that Yeshua claimed to be God’s son, not God himself. It looks to me that the accusers misinterpreted Yeshua’s words, did they not?
Thanks.
Agreed, Michael. I’m also finding this to be a difficult one, especially after Skip’s last visit to VA BCH, ha-ha! 🙂
You might note that Pslm. 82 is referenced by the Messiah. At least some of the quandary might get cleared up in that passage. Note the use of “Elohim” and “el” and try to remove yourself from the translation. 🙂 Also, there are some nuances there that deserve to be addressed.
YHWH bless you and keep you……….
Hi, Michael, you sure do ask a question nicely! What a nice gentleman you are. Thank you.
I know we are in the middle of fleshing this one out, and I hope and pray that between the lot of us, no stone gets left unturned and no question left unasked and hounded to death, if necessary. I believe that the entire earth is challenging the divinity of Yeshua as never before, and the question has now become front and center. There is no escaping it, and we have been promised that all the foundations that can be shaken, will, and I believe that this one is the cornerstone of it all. Time for a good shakeup!
I do not believe, in answer to your question, that the High Priest could have possibly mistaken Him, even if the average person on the street might have. It was a blunt exchange, and enough to satisfy Caiphas that Yeshua had truly blasphemed. It is the action of Caiphas, more than any other statement or incidence, that convinces me that there was no mistake. Yeshua was claiming to be God: the High Priest concurred that He was; and the crucifixion was based on that claim alone, as no other charge was able to be proven. He was killed over this claim, and if there had been a mistake in understanding it, He would have been the first to clear that up. Instead, Yeshua agreed. He provided the testimony on His own behalf that condemned Him. The High Priest needed no other witness. It is my understanding, and please correct me, that he tore his robe, (which, incidentally, disqualified him from carrying out the rites he was supposed to carry out) which he was forbidden to tear, but he tore it for blasphemy. Caiphas personally engaged in the stakes here. He would not have done it lightly. It was clearly an action that said “its either me or you”. Both of them rolled the dice for all they had. It was a total square off.
Surely it was that Yeshua claimed to be the Messiah that got him crucified?
Lots of them claimed to be messiah. Most of them were left alone.
But see Mel’s excellent comment. You are actually reading something into the text and even Caiphas did not conclude and Yeshua never claimed. The blasphemy is not about claiming to be YHVH. It is about the role of the Messiah (and there were many who claimed this role). Consider what the Jewish elite had at stake with someone who might actually be the Messiah. Then consider how Yeshua’s actions did or did not meet the expectations of these men.
I saw that story Laurita! Crikes! Blessings on her! Foxnews, i believe, and sans any detail that would imply she was not alone in her protest.
She wasn’t alone tho, let’s believe that YHVH’s spirit was there. If for no other reason, then her sitting there. Maybe the other families will come next week and sit w/her as well. Their silent protest in the pastor’s direction.
Sadly, i know of a church that regularly prays that if you don’t belong there you will LEAVE. Hundreds have left and the pulpit has taught they were unworthy.
Really? Your pews continually leak because of the holiness of the inner few?
I used to pray that church’s leadership would wake up. Now i pray no one gets sucked in.
Starting over is hard.
Seriously people, i have spent my whole life apologizing for asking questions that were just BEGGING to be asked.
Please, let’s not start apologizing for having a robust conversation, where we challenged each other (respectfully) and threw a few bricks.
Maybe it’s my Marine past, but geez, what’s a good party w/out a few bricks in the air?
It was an excellent conversation, a good time was had by all, i’m sure more then a few of us went digging for information and we all picked up a little more insight.
There’s a huge movement in churches these days regarding Godly order and the way things have to be done in either a chaotic, disruptive manner or a rigid, follow the hierarchally approved/ordained steps. I really hate that. I’d apologize, but that just honesty.
A topic came up. Whoever showed up and desired participated in hashing it out. It was then smoothed (?) over (mostly cuzz Skip threw in something knew an we all ran over there).
Then someone popped up and said “HEY!! I want to address the ORIGINAL topic”…so now we move to do that. It was a healthy exchange all the way around.
Can we all be good with that?
Yes, i hijacked Laurita’s original post. because i’m obnoxious like that.
Whether or not Messiah stated he was God is independent of the high priest renting his clothes.
The act (renting) wasn’t because he AGREED w/him, the act was because the statement was blasphemy.
The act rendered the high priest unable to perform his duties as high priest, leaving open the venue by which Messiah enters as the high priest.
In my studies of the “Jesus is God” question it seems to me that most of the Scriptures in question, whether it is John 1:1-13, Phil. 2:5-11, or the passage mentioned above concerning the high priest Caiaphas, Mt. 26:59-66, his deity must read into the text instead of it being a clear statement.
The Matthew passage says: “Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.” (Matthew 26:59 (NASB). So this corrupt group of priests were trying to find false witnesses against Jesus. They finally found two who would come forward with false testimony, but Jesus remained silent. Then the high priest said to him: “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” Matthew 26:63 (NASB).
Notice he does NOT ask if he was God, God the Son (a term not in the NT), or the second person of the Trinity. He is simply asking Jesus to answer whether he is the promised Messiah. Nothing more. Saying that by the high priest tearing his robes he thought Jesus was saying he was God changes the high priest’s question and reads the other interpretation into the text.
Jesus then applies Daniel 7:13 to himself which speaks of one “like a son of man” (not God) being brought into the presence of the “Ancient One” (who is God).
Reading Jesus deity into passages like this also contradicts clear statements in the New Testament such as one by Jesus in John 17:3, and ones by Paul in 1 Cor. 8:5-6 and 1 Tim. 2:5-6 (and there are more). Much more could be said about this, and I’m sure it will be especially by Skip since this wasn’t the subject of this TW. But anyway you get the idea. I just couldn’t resist chasing this theological rabbit.
If the scripture were made up of bricks, people would spend their time hitting each other over the head with them. The fact is, there is room to doubt in everything, precisely because there is no other room possible with which to believe. At the end of the day, we do have to read into the text what we choose to believe. This is why the things of God are hidden in plain sight. It is by faith that we please Him, not by brick. If it were by brick, He would have built a brickyard.
But at the end of the day, we are responsible for reading Scripture WITHOUT adding our paradigms and preconceptions to the text. The Scriptures MEAN what the authors intended for the audience that heard them, not what we think from 2000 years later. You may believe what you wish, but you cannot claim that it is biblical based unless you can show that the original author and the original audience thought the same thing that you think about the text.
There is no such thing as a neutral mind, is there? We believe what we want to believe. Yes, “we are responsible for reading Scripture without adding our paradigms and preconceptions”, but it is going to be a given that we are still going to see in it what we want to see. I think it is Greek to think that there is such a thing as a ‘proof’ for faith. There isn’t. I have searched that whole Book over for a proof of anything I believe in it, and found nothing that would hold up in a court of law. I have to take it all on faith. Everything in it requires faith out of me. Now, that does not mean that I have NO basis for my faith! Oh, no, everything must follow the rules, and they are all important. But, I will submit to you that everything above that applies to reading the divinity of Yeshua into the text is going to apply equally to reading the absolute certainty that He was NOT divine into it, too. There is no proof that would hold up in a court of law that He was not. If this is so, then it is going to be wasting our time to try to ‘prove’ it one way or another. We are going to be starting out with the wrong question, and at the end of that day, we may well find ourselves shipwrecked on the bricks of proof we are looking for, and having gone nowhere. Where do we want to go, and why? Shouldn’t we be asking those questions?
Thanks, Laurita, for you responses. To the others as well.
Regarding your statement, “but it is going to be a given that we are still going to see in it what we want to see.”
I agree that we do bring our own paradigmatic thinking in to any ancient document in effort to understand it’s intent. I do that with statements I hear originating just last week. I get it wrong often, in fact, with just a short distance of time of a few days.
However, I don’t think you can put a period at the end of your statement in that this dilemma is exactly what are efforts are focused at. We are trying to step out of our ways of thinking, separated by a vast amount of time, and place ourselves, somehow, in to the minds and understandings of them, back then.
It seems your statement, above, closes off the real challenge of deciphering original intent. I would think a neutral mind IS non existent as the yetzer haRa sees to that. Otherwise, we would all be clones to some tangible degree. No awe, wonder and reference would seem to be able to grow from that position.
A neutral mind would appear to be the very thing we want to avoid. “Choose you this day, life or death.”
Isn’t our journey one to stay off the neutral fence, choose life and glorify him? In order to do that, we must, it seems to me, try, at all costs, to avoid placing our determined or neutral mindset within a fabricated paradigm rather than digging to reveal the one the original audience was encapsulated in?
It is very difficult for me to continue in the views I’ve held so long in light of so many new nuggets uncovered. I find it more difficult to remain in those cherished beliefs as the insight does change things.
So, no, I don’t really think your above statement is a given. Even as Havvah saw what she wanted to see, YHVH intended her to dismiss all her original thoughts that weren’t synced with his definitive directives. She didn’t. At that point she walked in to deception.
That’s where I’ve been, by choice, all these years – deceived. I was lazy to delve in to things further than what my preachers/Sunday school teachers fed me.
Circling back around to the start, I just can’t dismiss the “Son of God,” and “God the Son” discrepancy. I haven’t really identified any places that Yeshua or any of his followers took up the subject of Yeshua being God the son.
I appreciate the discussions.
Michael, Skip has suggested that if the (very) early congregations believed that Yeshua was God that this would have created such widespread furor among the non-believing Jews who were waiting for the Messiah, their King, that there would be historical records about it, and there appear to be none.
Agreed. Seems it would have certainly been a huge issue, and yet there was none. It would seem the antagonists surely wouldn’t have need of false witnesses and false testimony if this was the real issue.
A argument of absence, but, still with some weight and reason.
Right. Thanks John. Can anyone imagine that Jewish believers who became convinced that Yeshua was in fact YHVH would not have proclaimed such in unmistakable terms. This is such a radical departure from Jewish monotheism and the creed of the Shema that it would have caused enormous schism in the early community. But nothing like that occurred. So why not? Because these Jewish believers in the Messiah did not suppose that he was YHVH. Rather, he was the Son of YHVH, chosen as Messiah, uniquely tasked to bring about the final victory in the restoration of the Kingdom.
That is very important. I agree. But at the end of the day, it is still going to be a matter of faith. One way or the other. You asked a very good question of me a while back, Skip. You asked “but why do you need Him to be God?” Great question! Now I will ask it of you: why do you need Him not to be God? I mean, I can see why the heathen and the athiests and the Buddhists and the Muslims and the Kabbalists and the JW’s and the Mormons and the Gnostics and even the Catholics, who, by their insistence that He achieved divinity through the immaculate conception of His mother, make of Him divine-by-creation, not to mention the rest of the humanists who, in essence agree with all the above in their insistence that divinity can be attained by a creature all need Him not to be God, but why you? And if He is not, then why not them?
Laurita,
I know you weren’t responding to me but to Skip, but please forgive my injection here.
I think where I am differing from you is in some definitions. You have said a couple of times,
“But at the end of the day, it is still going to be a matter of faith,”
or something close to that each time.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but, you seem to be defining “faith” as a noun, an intellectual assent. A “belief” that correlates to a certain frame of mind that one has come to adopt, own, realize and stand on. I can no longer accept this definition as a legitimate biblical understanding.
I have come to understanding faith more as a verb, something that one does such that anyone can see and observe it. You can’t, to my understanding, see intellectual assent or “beliefs” as they are merely thoughts void of any connection outside ones mind.
On the other hand, biblical faith seems more in line with pure actions that demonstrate, illustrate, and define one’s inner thoughts via an action. Yeshua points out that one could “see” some of his followers faith by what they actually did.
Your quote seems to place “faith” within an adopted paradigm of a later age than that of what those during Yeshua’s time understood. I mean I tried for decades to drum up enough “faith” to do things, but I could simply never enlarge my intellectual container enough to get the job done. And, further, what I “believed by faith” could be quite different than every one else. And I certainly couldn’t argue with their “beliefs” or they mine.
On the other hand, doing (faithing?) what his instructions say to do can’t really be argued with. You either do it or not. You either faith it or not. Doing it is one’s faith. Not doing it is one’s unfaithfulness. Both are something you can see and have definitive evidence of.
Having more faith would translate to following his instructions more, period. Having the faith the comparative size of a mustard seed is the first shovel full of moving a mountain. Doing it enough times, more, will move a mountain. It’s not a nugget of intellectual neurons captured in my brain, it is action.
Faith without works is no faith at all, mere vacuous words. Faith, or doing what YHVH instructions, either is or isn’t. You can see it or not. It’s not really arguable. Obedience, in one degree or another, is achieved by action, doable, visible and evident. Our modern day belief isn’t. I can’t see what one believes by what they say, only by what they do.
Ok, my brain is tired. Need to go get some walking done.
Again, thanks for the discussions.
You’re right. It comes down to action. The action here is clear, but it is going to inform all other action, is it not? On one side, you can choose to act like He is God, and on the other, you can choose to act and make choices like He is not. There is going to be nothing, at the end of this day, that is not going to come into play. I think this is the question: choose this day Whom you will serve and worship; God: or – man; for He made it clear – did He not – that we were to serve Him until He laid it all at His Father’s feet? I think Pascal’s wager comes down to this, too…
Maybe, maybe not. To make the choice a conundrum is certainly a way to walk, however, it still leaves things on the table.
I don’t completely feel comfortable with this wager as is leaves one to somewhat relish ignorance to some degree. If I can’t figure it out, just make a wager and be satisfied? If that is the foundation, that is, less tenacity to dig further, to continually and earnestly seek YHVH, our level of maturity and purpose levels off, it would seem. Another variation of burying the one talent? Be “safe.”
I have no trouble, at this point, in serving a man such as the man, Yeshua. Neither did Shaul or the rest of the apostles and followers, who never identified Yeshua as being YHVH, only his son, but, nonetheless, one with YHVH. Shaul, an admitted sinner, admonished others to follow him specifically, still a sinner, as he also followed Yeshua, one with no evidence of choosing to act contrary to YHVH’s instructions. There is plenty of room for Yeshua to have followed YHVH totally and completely without Yeshua having to be YHVH himself. Yeshua is the one we can and should emulate as he is the one and only example of complete and perfect obedience.
I’m sure Yeshua’s mother helped and encouraged this desire of Yeshua to tame his yetzer haRa in subjection to his haTov. Hearing and understanding from his mother the story of his particular birth would, it seems, to have had a very powerful and strong influence on Yeshua. The power of her awe and reverence of her pregnancy, I am pretty sure, would invite an acute drive to raise this child smack in the middle of the Torah garden. No one else could deal with the ramifications of answering to themselves, “Do you know who your father is?” quite like Yeshua. Apparently, it took solid root for at a young age he was in the temple doing his father’s bidding. Would we all take YHVH’s instructions to heart as did Yeshua. It is one real help to me to turn to Yeshua for strength, help, guidance, direction and hope. He did it. He’s been there. Quite the different relationship than with YHVH himself, dare I say, for Yeshua is like me, not unlike me as is YHVH. Yeshua is one that gives me hope to be like YHVH as I struggle to follow the one who can lead me to my El confidently, surely and absolutely. No one else has blazed the trail that Yeshua has. All others follow him to YHVH.
We might add this. If Yeshua is really GOD, then he is not like ANY HUMAN who ever existed. So how can he then expect us to act like he did? The Trinity, in one way or another, must DENY the humanity of Yeshua. In doctrine of the DUAL nature of Christ does exactly that since NO HUMAN BEING has a dual nature.
PRECISELY. I’m so lazy, i figured at some place someone would make my point and then I could chime in.
Done. *strolls back to her favorite sitting chair. and ottoman.*
I don’t NEED him to be anything more than he was. My need does not determine his identity. As Messiah he is more than sufficient. But that isn’t MY issue. The issue is who did he think he was and the only way to know that is to read and study what he said and what others said about him. My “beliefs” about the matter don’t make any difference at all.
But not even the original audience knew how to read all of it. Hence, the rabbinic curse on Daniel 9, which was the “time” referred to at the Messiah’s birth, and announced by the Baptizer, as well as by Yeshua Himself. How else did the wise men know to show up, and the godly Anna and SImeon, too, who were waiting for Him in the temple, for they knew He would come there, not to mention the huge rash of false messiahs that cropped up precisely then. Not everybody read the Scripture the way they were told to read it, and they were the original audience! Even today the original audience still does not know how to read some of it…
Laurita, I just looked and was surprised at how many comments there were on this TW and the direction they took. I owe you an apology if you felt like I was somehow hitting you over the head with a “scripture brick”. That was not my intention and I’m sorry if my comment sounded confrontational. I was simply pointing out some scriptures that seemed to me to give a different perspective and I hoped that you and others would consider them. I would not use scripture to beat someone over the head, especially a fellow believer.
However, I will sometimes use scripture to point out what I believe are flaws in doctrinal positions that were developed 300-400 years after Messiah Yeshua walked on the earth. When others pointed out to me how some of these positions were settled on by early “church fathers” who were corrupt and anti-semitic with their doctrinal rulings enforced by the power of Roman emperors, I was shocked. The more I read about the early years following the death and resurrection of Yeshua the more shocking it became. The doctrine of the Trinity was one of the things that bothered me the most the more I read about how it developed.
In case you or any of Skip’s readers are interested in researching this subject further so you can come to your own conclusions, I will list a few of the books that had an impact on me. “They never told me THIS in church!” by Greg S. Deuble; “The Only True God, A Study of Biblical Monotheism” by Eric H.H. Chang; “The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context” by James F. McGrath; “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence” by James D.G. Dunn. The first two are by men who either are or were pastors.
My only motivation for pursuing this subject is truth. I want to know Yeshua for who he really is and the way the early believers thought of him. You are certainly welcome to believe whatever you want. I don’t claim to be any kind of authority on the subject. And I am certainly open to correction if it can be shown in scripture and/or in the early history of the Pre-Nicene believers. And again Laurita, I hope you can forgive me if I offended you or my words seemed confrontational in any way. That was not my intention.
thanks for the references. I will have to add them to my library.
Ditto for me. I certainly was not going after anyone. Just trying to verbalize (type out) trying to understand things. Unless I somehow express my thoughts when I read a statement, I tend to somehow gel over things and they don’t leave a dent or mark on the part of me that understands anything. Laurita offered up some thoughts that I wanted to attempt to bounce off of.
It was a great conversation, Michael. They happen at parties. It’s just that we seem to be unaccustomed to that these days.
Party on and learn to duck.
I love this dialog. It really gets the thinking going.
Believe
Jesus Christ is LORD. His is the Name that is above every name. Is (not was) He a man? (one of us). Very much so — the most human “human” that ever was. But is He also (at the same time) “Divine?”
So which do we question (or doubt, or ignore)? His humanity? Or His Divinity? Search the scriptures.. (please do) for these are they that testify about [Who?].
Now I know what the picture of the door represents! It is the door to a closed mind. One that is rusted shut from non-use. Who was this Man? Why did He appear on the scene? ~In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.. ~ Oh? The Living Incarnate Word of God?
If the same question were asked of us today — “What shall I do with Jesus who is called the Christ?” — What would our answer be? Away with Him!! Let Him be crucified? Would we also go with the flow and agree with the angry mob?
“His blood be upon us and upon our children..” Let’s hope so. For we read in the later Scriptures — “it is the blood of Jesus (who is the) Christ, the Lamb of God, that cleanses from all sin..”
My, my. Born of a virgin? You know anyone like that? Me either. Walked on water? I haven’t seen this done lately. Or giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, healing to the leper. Weeping over Jerusalem. Weeping over the death of Lazarus. A very “human” thing to do. Oh, yes, and then there is the matter of calling forth the dead unto life.
Who was this man? The Light of the world is Who? Saul. Saul. — Why do you persecute Me? And the rest of the story is? Is He the One? Or should we look for another?
~ And when He again brings the Firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” ~ (Hebrews 1.6)
Now or Later?
~ For this reason also, God has highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him [given unto Him] the Name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in Heaven and on Earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father ~
Fast Forward
~ Then I heard every creature in Heaven and on Earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb** be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” (Revelation 5:13)
But why wait till then? Friends, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain!”
. . . . . Sigh . . . . .
Yes; begging the question?
I know of a pastor that prints out sermons from the internet and READS them weekly.
His head lifts up occasionally to check if anyone is still listening, I’m assuming.
Not quite monotone, but close.
He passes out spoons as people come in.
The amazing thing about this is not that he does this but that people TAKE the spoons!
Week after week.
(By the way, I ARE them folks. At least I was for a long time. Now I ask for a fork and a knife to go along
with the spoon. And, at least, I’m going to cut things up more and be a little more picky as to what gets on my plate. No more all you can eat buffet filled with fattening, sickening and delusional doctrinal proteins, carbs and fats!)
Spoons? What for? pardon my ignorance.
Sorry. A metaphor for feeding what I, “the preacher,” teach. Don’t ask questions, don’t upset MY authority as head shepherd. Listen to what I say, don’t think. THIS is what the bible says, I know this because this is what I learned in cemetery, er, seminary school.
Michael C I used to have a pastor who would actually tell those of us who sat in the congregation “You can close your Bibles. You don’t need to look at the scripture because I’m going to tell you what it says.” And some people were satisfied with that. Thankfully that was many years ago and for better or worse believers like me (and I think you too) are still asking questions.
I hear ya….
How can we humans strive to be like Jesus if he is God? What would be the point then? We are not and never will be truly God.
If Jesus was truly God then he really never made a choice cause God cannot sin anyways, so how did Satan tempt him?
I think that the word *divine* means something different today than it did back when these scriptures were written and I believe that the audience viewed it differently than we did too.
This whole issue (which fits right in with Trinity doctrine) can be so divisive among those who are really seeking to understand. Sometimes one simply has to agree to disagree and continue the journey anyways, and also chose to allow the other person to continue their journey.
It does get tiring though…….
Tiring in a good way, though, wouldn’t you say?
I would much prefer a struggle that nourishes in the midst of continued effort than getting fed
ice cream sundaes of rigid and unapproachable doctrines of men and institutions guarding enrollment
and funds.
“Be ye holy as I am holy….” (i personally adore the KJ. Deal with it.)
If Messiah was GOD, i have no chance of mirroring his holiness.
If he were GOD and says he was tempted as i am tempted and yet he persevered….no. He was tempted and carried a bigger card in his back pocket then his ability to run to YHVH in prayer for strength. He would BE the strength that i am needing. The healing that i am needing. The guidance. The answer…that i am needing.
If he WERE GOD then i have no hope, no aspiration of mirroring him.
If he were god then what i believe is no better of stronger then any other mythological entity that history speaks of.
…..ohhhhh…wait…..
Re: Deal with it comment. Please laugh. That was the intent.
great discussion! personally I’ve come around to the thinking that he was just a man but oh! what a man! he showed us that it can be done!!! that God wasn’t a cruel taskmaster who set up a system of rules and instructions that are impossible to fulfill.
I found the discussion on exactly who Jesus claimed He was interesting, but it would have been meaningful to have had a discussion about the actual TW.
Patty,
Discussion is still open…lead on….
Patty,
I’m sorry if the discussion was lead astray. I was responding to Laurita’s comment about Skip’s TW for today. Please forgive my rabbit trails. I’m easily distracted unfortunately. My apologies. 🙂
(However, I did receive some great help through all these posts!)
No need for apologies at all. But thanks. I read all of the comments. Food for thought and study. ?
Patty, I think it’s good to have significant digressions like this one. There’s no rule that says we have to discuss the TW and only that! 🙂
Hi bp Wade. I was reading the TW for today. lol I am getting ready to go with my mom to do an errand. I will say that it is interesting but scary to think about how others see us, and I have to admit I would be afraid to ask some people. I think it is way easier for me to see what others have done to me than what I have done to them. I am in this process right now of examining my life. And Skip’s TWs’ have been very meaningful to me in beginning this process. Any thoughts you might have around this would be appreciated. I will respond when I return from my errand.
There are not any short cuts in examining your life, the fear of stepping into is only surpassed by uhhmmm, the word coming to mind is ‘shame’. The anchor that keeps one from moving forward.
And pride. What if your WHOLE life is base on your vocal agreement of a certain principal. And then you are faced with sudden revelation that the principal you foundationally revolved on was error, and yet your whole social experience, your friends and family, is firmly ensconced in a paradigm that you now suspect (believe) to be false.
What would hold you back from moving forward? For me that would be shame and pride. Both of which we could attribute to being spiritual defects.
Don’t worry about what others think of you until you get stronger in how you think of you. And that means, for me, to continue examining both sides of the coin…what has been done TO you as well as what has been done BY you.
Maybe what has been done to you was precipitated by what was done by you. MAYBE.
I used to hold one hundred percent that we attracted what we had sowed. Then i had a relationship that was based solely on the other person’s need to destroy me. No matter what i did or how i did it (or said) i was going to be the problem.
At some point i had to own up to the fact that i was loving a person who talked a good talk, but he was never going to walk in peace with me, and it was ALWAYS going to be my fault.
So. Where does that put me?
Don’t be quick to beat yourself up. Be quick to repent, on all counts, first. Forgive constantly, but remember that TRUE forgiveness is not a statement because someone told you needed to. Sometimes true forgiveness takes time. Sometimes a lot of time.
You can repent for unforgiveness and bitterness while simultaneously grappling to get to the actuality of both.
Yes, this is awkward and all over the place, but it is with sincerity that i offer it to you. Thank you for the boldness to redirect the conversation to what is pertinent to you.
Ever been to a party? 15 or more people milling around, chit chatting about the offshoots of one conversation. Here you are. Let’s party….
Is it shame that keeps us from moving forward, or is it fear of rejection, of what someone will think of us; fear of man rather than God? Hebraic “shame” is designed to make us examine our lives. Our modern definition of “shame” wants to squash us. I don’t think God is the author of that modern definition.
Suzanne:
Fear of rejection has a root of shame. I was not referring to ‘us’, i clearly stated MY.
Patty,
Unfortunately i do not hold to a hard and fast personal demand of hebraic thought on every aspect of my life. Evidently Suzanne does…we will await her response.
Hebraic shame is usually about public persona whereas we now define shame in terms of inner feelings. Public shame is about reputation, lost or regained. But inner shame is distinctively different since there is really no means to remove it.
Fear of rejection would probably encompass both. For me any way. And for my specific point of reference, outside of divine intervention i don’t see any means of removing it.
And thanks for the breakdown.
Thanks bp Wade and Suzanne. I will take into account everything you both said. For me right now, I am not living in shame anymore. A definition that has worked for me is shame is feeling bad about who you are and guilt is feeling bad about what you have done wrong. Maybe, they are both biblically correct, but for me I have carried a lot of shame about who I was that I don’t believe God wanted me to feel. But yea, guilt, that is where I am right now. Some of my sins are so transparent. No problem with those. But what about some of my other actions or words…my disrespect of another person(s) expressed or felt….where have I been harmful? And then how do I go about making right with those I have harmed? So no, I am not living in shame anymore. I thank YHVH for that!! And no bitterness anymore either….that can eat you alive. But still some hey, when are they gonna get their two cents worth! 🙂 But trying to stay focused on me. And despite all of this, I love God so much. So grateful to know YHVH is Real.
we need to do a lot more work on the difference between our idea of shame and the Hebrew idea of reputation. There is something really important here that I can’t quite capture yet. But I will come back to it in time.
Thank you. I agree.
Hah! You stated it pretty convincingly, i honestly thought the guy was passing out spoons! 🙂
I am easily entertained so I think bizarrely most of the time. Some of those times I actually think some pastors wanted to pass out real spoons. Several were so guarded they were unapproachable unless you wanted to donate a good chunk of money or something of value to them and their legacy. Strange stuff that I used to think was normal and expected.