Victims of Assumptions
And Jesus said to them, “You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? Luke 5:34 NASB
Bridegroom – “Most commentators assume that Jesus’ mention of the bridegroom refers to Himself as the Messiah; however, within Jewish tradition, the bridegroom never refers to the Messiah. As we have seen, the connection between fasting and the bridegroom pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem and its sanctuary (see Jer. 7:34; 25:10, 1 Macc.1:20-40; m. Sotah 9:14; see also Rev. 18:23).”[1]
Turnage appears to be correct. The bridegroom in Jewish context is not Yeshua. Can you accept that? Can you re-evaluate those longstanding assumptions about Yeshua’s references to the bridegroom? Can you welcome the implication that Yeshua is a man of first century Jewish thought? Are you ready to put aside your post-Reformation interpretation of the text and read it as if you were in the audience of Jews in 26 CE? Turnage’s analysis of the idiomatic meaning of “bridegroom” doesn’t just change our view of Yeshua’s Messianic claims, it alters our perception of common Christian theological motifs. It demands that we stop imagining the theological developments of the early Church fathers and the subsequent history of allegorical exegesis and Catholic theology are biblically based. A lot has to change, and it begins with reading the text as if we were Jews in the first century.
What a difference this makes! Are you ready to alter your understanding of the “bridegroom” passages from Messianic commentary to predictions of the destruction of the Temple? If Jewish context is crucial for correctly understanding this idea, what does this imply for other inherited Christian concepts? For example, how would our understanding of evangelism change if we thought of it from the perspective of first century Jewish rabbis? What would have to change in our interpretation of the “marriage supper of the Lamb”? How would we rethink the idea of atonement or the cross? What would we have to change regarding sovereignty and individual moral responsibility? How would we re-evaluate those troublesome passages about obeying those in authority, or the qualifications of elders and deacons, or the idea of preaching itself?
And where will we go to get some background in order to accomplish all this reassessment? The answer to this question is usually quite surprising, and perhaps disconcerting, to most Western believers. We must go to the other literature of the age, that is, the rabbinic material and the historical records that help us see the world through the eyes of those who lived in the time of Yeshua. There are reasons why this large body of literature is hardly mentioned in Christian circles and they are not simply ignorant of its existence. The real reasons are theological. To read the Bible as Jewish calls into question the very foundation of Christianity, as several prominent Christian scholars have noted. The reason most Christians know nothing about the Jewish context of the Bible, particularly about the Jewish context of the Gospels and Paul’s letters is that the existence of the Church requires these texts to be read as if they were not Jewish.
Don’t despair. The literature is easily available. And there are plenty of precedents for this approach. After all, you wouldn’t try to understand the Magna Carta without knowing the historical context that created its production. You wouldn’t try to explain the Constitution of the United States without reference to the War of Independence. You wouldn’t read Dante’s comedy as if it were written by Hollywood screen writers. So why do we think we can read the Bible according to those men who deliberately rejected its Jewish culture?
Topical Index: bridegroom, Luke 5:34, exegesis, Marc Turnage
[1] Marc Turnage, Windows into the Bible, p. 194.
I read the first three free sample chapters of Marc Turnage’s “Windows into the Bible” out of curiosity a couple of hours ago and in spite of having been to Israel twice , once with Skip and Bob as great leaders and guides thinking I had learned so much, Turnage’s intro chapters are absolutely compelling for a relatively “new boy” convert to Bible study. He brings so much detail, as he describes it, in four dimensions; Spatial, Historical, Cultural and Spiritual.
I look forward to his as well as your wisdom and perspective. Thanks Skip.
I have to tell you the truth, it actually comes as a relief. Since I’m a guy I could never really get into the idea that I was a bride for a guy. I never really new how I was suppose to feel about it other than it was slightly emasculating. I can relate to God as my father because I have a great dad, and if you haven’t I would think that you at least have seen a great father and know where your fell short. But wearing a dress as a guy? I always thought, “What an odd depiction that only 50% of the reading audience would be able to get into.” It seemed like it was brushing up next to the “children of God” cult ideas.
So to answer your question(s), relief is what I feel Skip. Confused but relieved. There are a lot of implications that go with it that I need at least 2 cups of coffee for and I’ve only had one so I’ll leave it at that.
Question, you say that there are other sources that we must go to. Care to share where I can start? Is “Window into the Bible” a good place?
Also I leave with this question, Jews says that their religion is not Messiah-centric. If I get the ‘whole story’ from the cultural context am I expecting to find that to be true, or am I going to find myself having a deeper understanding of what the N.T was trying to show and how important it was for Yeshua to show ______?
As I read Derek’s note above, I nod in agreement. Almost two years ago I ran into a wall of Christian assumptions and realized what I had been taught was not even a start of the whole story. Since then I’ve read/watched your studies on Genesis, Hebrew view of prayer, Crosswords, many of the word studies, etc. As a Pastor’s wife in an evangelical church, I have felt it necessary to go “underground” with my personal study. There are four people I have found with which to bounce these revelations around, but we are all wanderers. Skip, I need to study Torah. I’ve started listening to the AlephBeta and Chabad websites, but I feel like a child wandering in a gourmet shop not having any idea what’s good and what’s just chocolate covered grasshoppers. I need more direction. Help! I echo Derek’s question: Is Turnage’s “Window into the Bible” a good place to start?
Kathy,
I’m right where you are. My father in law is the pastor and my Sunday school teacher and my husband his associate. The more I learn the more I am at odds with their teaching and leading. Not a very comfortable place to be, especially when I am totally alone. There’s a few people I can share a little with and bounce ideas off of, but it’s only because they are accepting of me. And my poor kids–I’m trying very hard to teach them the truth without them getting stuck in the middle. I get enough encouragement from small things to keep going, but I usually feel like I have no idea what I’m doing and am just muddling through. I learned a lot from torahclass.com–I found them just though a google search and through some roundabout way, I eventually got here. Please feel free to email me, Kathy (and anyone else who is in a similar place) crsta33 at yahoo dot com. I could sure use some friends, even long distance, to help and encourage me. I soak up all the TWs and the comments, but I don’t know enough to comment much just yet.
Helloo Kathy,
You know, chocolate covered grasshoppers are kosher, John the baptiser had them; they are calcium rich. 🙂
I have not tried them though. Had one baby grasshopper enjoying my organic mint plants! If their diets are on good stuff, they can’t be bad. Shalom!
Hello again Kathy, I have not fully given you a full reply above, so here goes-
Christian assumptions are such barriers to truly understanding YHWH’s words; Hebraic perspective is critical to our unlearning and maturing.
Acts 17:11:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
These Bereans of whom Acts speaks are Jews, and not only Jews, but law-abiding Jews, who were in the synagogue, as a matter of adherence to their commandments and customs.
The Jews went to the first source of all things, the Scriptures; and lest we believe that they had access to any Book of Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), they did not, for no such book was written at that time. Even if any Gospel had been written then, it certainly would not have been viewed as a “Scripture,” for no theological book can become anointed so in the generation it is written, except for the Torah itself.
How many Christians truly interrogate, scrutinize, sift, examine, or question what they hear from the pulpit, from the radio, the TV, from their commentaries and interpretive books.
Are there the “diligent” who do not blindly accept doctrine? Where are they who will question “once saved, always saved?” How many will fall to antinomianism because they did not know the Truth? – adapted from Tom Wise
My own personal experience, which is shared by others, is that churches today are actually suspicious and fearful of any within their flock who truly hold to a rigorous, unbiased approach to the study of the Word of God.
More on this in my comments below…Shalom and blessings in seeking and finding!
I came to the conclusion that studying Rabbinics is necessary some time ago. It’s an elephant when you are an adult with no background. Talmud or Mishnah or Tosefta do not appear to be texts you just sit down and read. It’s an entirely different world. There has got to be a clear systematic method for someone who has no background to approach these texts on their own without going to seminary. I need someone to occasionally sit beside me and answer my questions as I move forward. I intend to do that with or without someone because I always do. As it is, I’m trying to learn many topics on my own, and my Amazon wish list is quite large. I have other wish lists as well, with stuff on Rabbinics being the biggest. The choices before me are many, so the question before me is which topic, book, or weakness should I approach first? Ancient Near East, Rabbinics, Idioms, and more Hebrew, etc. I want to do them all. I don’t know which will give me the best benefit moving forward. So call me sometime and let’s discuss it…or give me some time at the feast.
Hello Skip and others,
Your last five or so reflections where you include reference to Marc Turnage have been rather enlightening to me. So too, I am currently attending a Bible Study with my wife at her church on I Peter.
Observation after three of seven studies, much of what you and other writers who share the Hebraic perspective is quite accurate. Rather than create discord, if the opportunity presents itself in discussion, I will share the Hebraic transliteration and definition of a given buzz word such as holiness, pure in heart, believe, faith, from the website biblehub.com. In one session, the word obedience was preferred over holy, where Peter quotes from Leviticus. Holy is seen as too high of standard for humanity. Generally, the group may communicate thank you very much, when I may share a Hebraic definition, – then still hold on to the familiar understanding they have held or were taught all along.
From my own life, living out these words has taken time to take root. God is merciful toward me in that regard. The challenge is to extend similarly to those who intellectually are slow to change..
Is it easy?
No, not at all. But I am reminded, Love covers a multitude of sins.” “We are His workmanship,” not self-made followers of YHVH!
David Russell
Hi again,
Excuse the pester.
I have found reading I Peter and other Scripture from “The Amplified Bible, Classic Edition” on bible gateway.com to be somewhat revealing. It seems to acknowledge by word choice, existence of Hebrew Christianity in the time of the Apostles. Se I Peter 1:1-2 for example in this version.
Furthermore, the late Messianic Rabbi Stan Greene, informed me that The Amplified version begins to show how a Hebrew listener would have heard exhortations and or commands conveyed. Amplified words expand or are inclusive of a given range of things being communicated to listeners then.
The “Amplified version” might be a good place for other folks to sample goodies at the gourmet shop as it were. Just a suggestion.
David Russell
While the Amplified Bible might suggest the existence of “Hebrew Christianity” in the first century, the history says otherwise. There was no Hebrew Christianity during this time. Those who believed Yeshua to be the Messiah were either Jews or Gentiles who followed “the Way”, a sect of Jewish thinking. The idea of Christianity did not develop until after 135AD. Probably later than that.
Additionally, if i may respectfully add, there was no ‘Jewish’ thinking at the time either, as Judaism did not exist before Messiah. What existed was a hebrew people that had a peculiar and distinct faith that they adamantly adhered to even in the face of extreme persecution.
With Messiah, the religious leaders of the day, the rabbinics that Messiah referred to as ‘thieves and hypocrites’ incited those believers against him; he was martyred as an enemy of the state. With his blood those same Pharisees and Sadducees baptized a infantile religion they PRESENTED as ‘jewish’ but in fact drew away to man made rituals and add-on teachings.
The further away from the nexus of the event of the cross, the stronger and more predominate the rabbinic became, until now we see those teachings and such AS BEING “jewish”, and don’t realize that Torah and it’s application, alone, reflects YHVH’s (YHWH?) presence in one’s life.
This is a great post and accurately reflects my search over the past decade, one sidetracked by personal weaknesses and lack of focus. Perhaps i am coming around the bend here.
Skip, thanks for your input on the Amplified Version in reference to Jewish believers being mentioned in the epistles. My error was not to state that the Amplified states Peter’s first letter included Jewish believers among those addressed. Dr. Fruchtenbaum and you also acknowledge this fact in your respective articles. Generally, the church and some other major translations sidestep this as you know.
Thanks Skip, God be with you and yours.
David Russell
Skip can you maybe enlighten us what the apostles in Acts were referring to as a sect where the Jews of the time confronted them specifically stating that it is by this sect that they serve God… Clearly not one of the existing Jewish dogmas… Unless this is another incorrect translation.
I have read the whole chapter 5 many a times specifically verse 36 and I still find it hard to understand especially now because I have never been very convinced of the interpretations I have heard and now it has gotten worst..
Regards,
Benny de Brugal
I am trying to make this fit with Rev 21:2; 9-10. It says the bride of the Lamb is Jerusalem descending out of heaven. I am assuming the Lamb is Yeshua. Of course, stating that Jerusalem is the Bride of Yeshua goes against Christian Theology, who claims the Church is the Bride. But how does this fit with Turnage’s concept?
Curious: How does Turnage tie the parable of old and new wineskins (Luke 5:36-39) with his interpretation above? Also, how does he harmonize this novel understanding of Luke 5:34 with Ephesian 5:22-32?
How do you get these texts to study for yourself.
Skip,
You posit a false dichotomy by stating that Christianity ignores the Jewish aspect of the first century and its application to the Scriptures, as if this is done carte blanche. In previous comments I’ve cited a few examples of commentaries recognizing certain Jewish traditions as being the theological backdrop for proper interpretation.
Craig,
i’ve done a search to find other comments by you, and have not succeeded. Could you tell me where else you have commented? thanks
bcp,
Off the top of my head, on the “kal va-chomer” thread I made a comment referencing Grant Osborne who calls it “qal wahomer”.
On the following thread:
https://skipmoen.com/2016/09/from-genesis-to-proverbs-to-john-2/comment-page-1/#comments
…I quote Raymond E. Brown (you can just do a search for “brown” and find the comments) using rabbinic thought – one having to do with judgment and giving life on the Sabbath, the other with agency.
Also, on the same link as above I have a comment regarding the John 10:34-37 use of Psalm 82:6 – on September 22, 2016 at 8:27 pm – in which I note that Jesus is “using the classic rabbinic method of arguing from the lesser to the greater – a common theme throughout John’s Gospel.
So. I found the thread and i must say, you are totally missing the point of Skip’s blog. It is NOT here so we can go running around proclaiming what we already THINK we know.
It’s here to so we can smash our preconceive paradigms and begin anew.
You are seemingly not ready to do so. Inspire of the fact that numerous people presented you with numerous Items to consider OUTSIDE of your present paradigm, you clung to your perceptions like a puppy latched onto a bone running in circles.
Christianity IS false religion based on the annihilation of the hebrew instruction and desire to worship ONE god. In my opinion it is the largest cult going.
Figure that one out, aside from all your head knowledge, and you will feel better.
bcp,
I absolutely do see the point of Skip’s blog here. I’ll quote from his “About Skip” page:
So, we are dialoguing; however, since we are discussing theological issues (issues about God and his word), we are necessarily discussing doctrine. But if dialogue is to take precedence, let’s continue to dialogue. I’m always ready to challenge what I think I know; and I find opposing viewpoints stimulating in that they can get me to reassess my views. I really want to know the religio-historical-political background of the Scriptures so that I can fully appreciate what God really said through his chosen vessels – the writers of the Scriptures.
Having said all that, while I’ve seen some things that have broadened my horizons, most of what I’ve found is contradictory to what can be gleaned by contextual clues and the rest of the Scriptures. For example, in this current thread, while one could construe this particular verse as applying to the future destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, this belies the context (and other Scriptures). By that I mean that there must be a reason for Jesus’ use of the parable and old and new wineskins following this statement about fasting and the bridegroom. How do the two relate? Applying Turnage’s view, what did Jesus mean when He said, “And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”? Specifically, how does Jesus’ parable relate to Luke 5:33-35?
Turnage’s statement that “within Jewish tradition, the bridegroom never refers to the Messiah” is absolutely true. I have Christian commentaries that make the same statement, i.e. that up until Christ, in the OT and other Jewish tradition, there’s no reference to the Messiah as bridegroom. However, to automatically conclude that Luke 5:34 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is to miss the point of Jesus’ statement in its context. There’s an obvious connection between John the Baptist’s fasting and praying disciples (the old wineskins) and Jesus’ disciples (the new wineskins). Perhaps, John 3:27-30, which, by inference, indicates the Messiah IS the bridegroom, provides a connection here? And, what about Revelation 19:6-9? Turnage’s Scripture references above in the quote omit those which DO illustrate that Messiah is referred to as the bridegroom. That indicates either sloppiness or intellectual dishonesty.
You wrote, Christianity IS false religion based on the annihilation of the hebrew instruction and desire to worship ONE god. In my opinion it is the largest cult going. Everyone is entitled their opinion. But, to make the patent claim that Christianity is based on annihilating Hebrew instruction “and desire to worship ONE God” requires some substantiation. To correct one of your misunderstandings, Trinitarianism IS monotheism; it’s not polytheism. A careful reading of the Scriptures indicates that it was Jesus Christ/Messiah who was against some of the “tradition” of the Jewish leaders of the time (e.g. Matt 15:6; Mark 7:8-19, 13).
My original comment was in response to your stating that Skip “posit a false dichotomy by stating that Christianity ignores the Jewish aspect”….
It’s not that christianity ignores the jewish aspect, it’s that they twist it AWAY from the ‘jewish’ perspective, addressing to it new and meanings and concepts that in no way reflect the original intent.
That perspective, the bone that i referred, to is the same as hewn stones (EXACTLY the same) in Exodus 20:25….wholly unacceptable.
Most everyone i know can quote Scripture and tell me what they think it means, backed up by a string of author names that agree with them. It really means nothing.
In that, most of them quote the usual catholic-lite litany of christian understandings. not only are the bones man made, there isn’t much flavor or meat left in them.
Proof texting is not proof, in my opinion.
I’m not sure that quibbling over the word bridegroom is a salvation specific topic or a distraction from life, actually.
It’s fine if you disagree with some or all Christian views. However, to make the blanket statement that “they twist it AWAY from the ‘jewish’ perspective, addressing to it new and meanings and concepts that in no way reflect the original intent” is patently false, as my citations of various commentaries proves.
You wrote: Most everyone I know…Proof texting is not proof, in my opinion. I find it a tad hypocritical of you to find fault with all Christian interpretation (though some actually agree with Jewish interpretations), while you don’t take issue with Turnage’s novel interpretation of “bridegroom” here. And, what about the points that I found in error on the kal va-chomer post? As for just one: Turnage is absolutely wrong on the Greek grammar of son of man, as Matthew 12:8 uses the definite “the Son of Man” – a term Jesus self-ascribed as a 3rd person reference 79 times in the New Testament, including Matthew 12:8 and Mark 2:28 (Mark 2:27 is not the parallel verse to Matthew 12:8 as anyone can plainly see).
In your opinion, based on your preconceived and deeply held views, Turnage is wrong.
Just being clear.
And frankly, after having spent 10 years in a Marine uniform protecting YOUR right to YOUR opinion AND having been divorced based on my (now ex)husband DEMANDING that i not adhere to Torah, i’m pretty well immune to your telling me i’m being hypocritical.
The self righteous focusing on a word (‘All’) and the declaration ‘as anyone can plainly’ see is pretty much a demand that ‘ALL’ see as you (and your crew) ‘see’.
And we don’t ‘ALL’ ‘plainly see’ it that way.
May i suggest you pick up any book by Michael Hoffman, maybe “Judaism’s Strange Gods” and get back w/me.
Not before .
I may not agree with you or your presentation, but i will defend to the death your right to it.
PS: after i thought about i figured i better explain my stance on Hoffman.
His book is an excellent example of counter discussion on topics that people have accepted as factual or correct w/out much examination. People hear and read something over and over and just accept it as truth.
It wasn’t until a few years ago that i ever heard any counter discussion as it related to the plausibility of gassing 6 million people. At first it was shockingly incomprehensible to consider that it may not have happened.
I’ve pretty much come around to thinking it did not. This is NOT something i intend to debate. it’s my opinion and i do not care, nor will i entertain discussion on it. It’s just to ‘raw’ a topic.
To date Skip and his blog is one of the FEW venue that dare to discuss the hot topics that he presents in a venue such his, that invites discussion.
What discussion IS: exchange of OPINION
What discussion is NOT: Politically Correct.
Get over the semantics of “ALL” and look at the intent.
Take a deep breath and consider what the world would look life if your heretofore considered locked int beliefs and belief system was wrong.
You will probably live.
bcp,
With respect to “son of man” in the Scripture cited, Turnage is wrong. That’s a verifiable fact, not an opinion.
You wrote: And we don’t ‘ALL’ ‘plainly see’ it that way. I don’t think it can be any plainer. Mark 2:27 is not the parallel verse to Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28 is. But, if you wish to think it opinion rather than fact, you are certainly entitled to your opinion that it’s not fact. But here are the plain facts:
Mark 2:27-28:
Matthew 12:8:
Here’s an online interlinear for Matthew 12:8, indicating “son of man” contains the articles, making it definite (ho huios tou anthōpou):
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/12-8.htm
One can plug into the above link Mark 2:27-28 to find the same presence of the articles in verse 28, as well as the absence of “son of man” in verse 27 (which would be huios anthrōpou instead of ho huios tou anthōpou, as found in both Mark 2:27 and Matthew 12:8)
You wrote: What discussion IS: exchange of OPINION. So then, individuals cannot discuss facts?
Don’t worry, I wouldn’t dare debate someone who denies the Jewish atrocities of WWII, especially on a pro-Jewish site.
Thanks for your military service. I served myself over 30 years ago, possibly before you were born.
A) We were in at the same time, and thank you.
B) You are making presumptions on what i believed, based on what you think you read.
Sorry but I do not read the same connection concerning the bridegroom. Both the verses in Jeremiah as well as Revelations’ seem to refer to Babel and not Jerusalem or the Temple.
I do agree that Yeshua was a Jew he taught and upheld Jewish feasts and the Ten commandments and instructed others to teach the same. He consulted Moses and referenced the laws of Moses all up and until His time came. Then His references changed to Him, his teachings, his resurrection.
The biblical references are few but are the most accurate likelihood… As such I can only accept Yeshua was referring to Himself in the natural body which was intended to only be an example of what is in store for believers.
As for fasting the prophets stated that the fasting God wanted was our turning from sin and not refraining from eating.
As Yeshua time had no yet come he was most probably paraphrasing these prophetic reasons…
We cannot fast naturally while we are partaking in the fast God requires…
Too overcome sin truly we need to live fully.
Too overcome temptation we need to reflect – my understanding the reason for the natural fasting.
Correction Babylon and not Babel my thumb error…
The path I started on in 1998, began with the question….are my beliefs based on theological doctrines, or on God’s word. Over time with prayer, personal Biblical study, Hebraic teachers including Today’s Word, thank you Skip; and considering teachings of some Orthodox speakers referencing Jewish literature, God helped me replace some deeply ingrained church-learned beliefs with truth. It’s like taking a big sigh of relief to let those go and simplify my life. Deuteronomy 30:11 “Surely this Instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you nor is it beyond reach” . And my favorite verse Micah 6:8 “He has told you, O man what is good, and what God requires of you: Only to do justice, and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your God”. Praised be his name!
Hi everyone,
I like Sandy’s verse citations and pray that the journey Sandy and all of us are on have YHVH as center as opposed to theology as center. There is an informative article and podcast by George Wood, Influence Magazine, online, with Marc Turnage. I don’t have the link but recommend it highly as informative featuring a aural and written presentation of Turnage and his understanding of Bible and culture.Your time permitting to further consider.
David
John 3:27-30 (NASB):
The narrator of the Gospel of John is quoting John the Baptist as referring to himself as “the friend of the bridegroom” who rejoiced at the voice of the bridegroom. Who is this bridegroom?
The OP asked: What would have to change in our interpretation of the “marriage supper of the Lamb”? How would we rethink the idea of atonement or the cross?
Revelation 19:6-9 (NASB):
Marriage of the Lamb
Q: Who is the bride? A: the saints.
Q: Who is the Lamb and by inference the bridegroom? A: If one is not sure, see below:
Revelation 7:9-14 (NASB):
Craig true to your calling well referenced excerpts.
The saints are the bride – the new Jerusalem is the bride. Who or what are these people?
Bridegroom the Lamb or Christ or those resurrected in Christ: 1 Cor 15, Eph 2 till 4 as we need to try and grow to the full measure of Christ our faith that overcomes the world…
We agree salvation is through Yeshua a Jew. But we must also acknowledge that Yeshua per se could only do this through His anointing as or in Christ.
The spirit or prophets must be tested if from God as proclaiming Christ in Flesh as salvation is through deeds in Christ. And not Yeshua the Jew but Yeshua teachings as these are the way of living out the 10 Commandments in meekness and humbleness in fear for El or Yah the God of Israel.
As Sandy referenced a summarized calling to be sons and daughters of God – anointed in Christ…
Bridegroom versus bride or are both but metaphors’ to explain how we are spiritually united as a the anointed priesthood for God.
Not proclaiming our views are right but rather helping each other apply our understanding in what we do for a living as did Paul the prisoner in Christ but eager tentmaker…
Seeker,
Thank you. Keep in mind, however, that there is a difference between Christ/Messiah’s anointing and the believer’s anointing.
Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh (John 1:14). The Word was “with God” in the beginning and with the statement “the Word was God (or, as some have said “divine”)” the Word is in some sense identified with God (John 1:1). The Word is the preexistent, eternal agent by whom/which the world came into existence (John 1:2; Hebrews 1:2; Colossians 1:16). The word-made-flesh is identified as the Son of God the Father (Hebrews 1:1-4), and this Son is the “exact representation of his [God’s] being, sustaining all things” (Heb 1:3). If the Son is sustaining the creation he made as agent of God the Father, this implies that the Son was “sustaining all things” both before and during the Incarnation (cf. Colossians 1:17). That’s quite a statement!
Jesus (the Son, the word-made-flesh) was “made a little lower than the angels” (Heb 2:9, 14), which indicates a status change from a prior high status to a lower one (the Greek verb elattoō, translated “made” here, explicitly refers to a reduction in status, a diminishing). The Son received another status change when He became “as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs” (Heb 1:4). When the Son, “made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3).
Throughout the Gospel of John the Son referred to the Father as “My Father”, to the consternation of his Jewish adversaries (John 5:17-18, 10:25-39).
Thankyou Craig
John 1 we have discussed in depth and we agree on that understanding. A good summary provided by Bob on a few blogs ago…
Jeremiah said the anointing by the spirit is to heal, restore vision, release the captive and proclaim the year of the lord. Jesus confirmed this…
Jesus then anointed his disciples with the same task and Paul said we must work towards the fullness of Christ. In fact all the apostles seemed to have the same power as Jesus… For me this says the anointment is the same.
Was it not David that also said we as humans were created just less than heavenly bodies… The reference Paul used in Hebrews therefore can also imply every believer. With the difference of to which level we accept and live out the Words…
Yes Jesus was born as the Son of God… So is every male that opens the mother’s womb. The difference is that all male must be separated and taught what the anointment is. Jesus had home field advantage in that God prepared Him personally…
All those that do His teachings God makes abode in them… Sons and Daughters.
For me the difference is not in divine anointment just a difference in personal commitment.
Craig if I have this wrong then I have exegeted myself out of shema.
I will then have to relearn the NT as it is the roll out of the manifestation of the resurrected body of Christ. As Skip said my exegesis presupposes an answer before I understand the context.
Believe and trust in Jesus and God… But be empowered by the anointing spirit Christ.
Back to metaphoric parables used by Jesus… Were they explained before His mission or only declared thereafter…
Seeker,
You wrote: if I have this wrong then I have exegeted myself out of shema.” LOL; I like the way you phrased that! I should note that from the Christian Trinitarian perspective, the shema is not violated. In shorthand one could think of it as ‘one God, three “faces”’.
Jesus had at least one power that no one else had (and consider His stilling of the storm – something no other has done). That is the power to raise Himself from the dead (cf. John 2:19, 22), as per John 10:17-18:
As regards Messiah’s relationship as Son to His Father, it’s described as much more than any other wo/man. Jewish tradition recognized that all Jews were sons or daughters of YHVH (but non-Jews were not – or at least not by birth). The difference, and the reason why the Jewish leaders in John’s Gospel took offense to Jesus is because He “was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). That is, by Jesus’ phraseology, calling God “My Father”, His Jewish adversaries understood it as a claim that He was, in fact, God or equal to God. This charge was never disputed by Jesus; in fact, He confirmed it by inference with His continued reference to God as “My Father.”
I don’t think you caught my point that when Jesus was “made a little lower than the angels” that this implies, by the specific wording, that the person of Jesus had a higher status before His earthly existence as Word-made-flesh. The larger point here is that the writer of Hebrews is implying that Jesus = the Word (ho logos), not only that Jesus = Word-made-flesh. This is evident in Hebrews 1:2:
So, “the Son” = the Word, that is, the preexistent, eternal Word of John 1:1, the agent of creation of John 1:3.
As to the anointing of Jesus and the anointing of humans, Jesus is the only whom Scripture claims was “the Word made flesh” (+ what I wrote just above). In addition, He is the only one to have been described as having the “fullness of God/Deity” (Colossians 1:19, 2:9). In contrast, believers are said to have the Holy Spirit indwelling.
Drat! That’s the second time today I forgot to close the italics after quoting someone!
Craig.
So was Mary impregnated by the Holy Spirit /Ghost.
How would it be possible to reap the natural. God created the natural out of nothing… When He created the first Adam out of earth he was earth…
Then He created the Second Adam… From the HG… He was divine.
Wait then why was it needed to bring the divine Adam into this world by a virgin birth.
And why do we say his second coming will be a natural event when the birth was unnatural…
Is there not a deeper message locked up in Jesus and his birth than from the kin of David…
This Could not be correct as Mary was not out of David’s bloodline Joseph was. Could this be why He was rejected as He was.
Maybe we may still be wrong in understanding John 1 versus Genesis 1&2.
And if we be reborn through the HG the surely that must be close to the same anointment as Jesus just not to the same fullness…
Seeker,
From the Christian perspective, the divine eternal, preexistent Word became flesh when the Holy Spirit “came upon” Mary. Without philosophizing too much, the divine Word joined to Himself human flesh in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit. This resulted in the unique divine/human Person of Jesus Christ. Technically, Jesus does not exist before the Incarnation, though the Word did/does.
I cannot tell you why God chose Jesus’ lineage to David as coming through Joseph, but Scripture does affirm this. Interestingly, in the genealogy of Jesus there is something very unusual with the wording “and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). Joseph is not Jesus’ biological father. We also note that Mary was already pledged to be married to Joseph when she was “with child through the Holy Spirit” (1:18). And, this is why Joseph wanted to dissolve the betrothal quietly (1:19). All this to say, Joseph was Jesus’ stepfather. Yet Scripture proclaims that Jesus is from the “root of Jesse”, from the Davidic line.
Either we accept this or we are left with wondering just what is Scripture and what isn’t. There is a discipline known as textual criticism that compares ancient manuscripts with one another, noting discrepancies, and attempting to determine just what the original text actually states. In the New Testament book of Matthew pertaining to this section, while there are a few slight variations, nothing would impact the basic meaning I put above. In other words, this is what the Scriptures say.
The issue of the lineage of Joseph is handled by the rules of adoption in the first century Jewish community. Bob Gorelik has a lesson on this.
As you rightly pointed out, this understanding of the conception is Christian. What should be obvious is that it depends on viewing the Holy Spirit as a “person” in the “Godhead,” an idea that did not exist in the first and second centuries. So the Christian view is a late development, and certainly would not have been a possible explanation to anyone in the time of Mary.
So all boils down to acceptance by the father to prove linage… Not actual bloodline. I can accept that as reasonable as no one except Joseph and Mary should have known of the miraculous conception…
I am not sure I am understanding any of these points. BOTH Mary and Joseph were of the royal lineage of David. Joseph, sure, was of Solomon’s line, but Mary came of Solomon’s half-brother, Nathan. They both possessed royal, Davidic blood.
Further, I have seen that Yeshua was commonly considered a bastard, as Mary’s pregnancy before her marriage would have been known in their small village. I am not sure it was supposed to be a secret at all, anyway. It was part of the cross Mary was called to bear, for sure. The adoption of Joseph would have made no relevant sense if Yeshua had been considered to have been his out of wedlock, that is obvious. I understand betrothment to include sexual ‘permission’, after all, in Jewish, as well as many other Eastern cultures and it would not have garnered that much attention.
I want to say something here about prophecy. Skip points out over and over that prophecy is something that is not supposed to be understood until AFTER it happens. Therefore, the prophecies of the Messiah in the Tanakh specifically would NOT have been understood by the people who were reading them ahead of time. Skip also points out that prophecy was not intended, per se, to be a forecast of the future, but was intended to ensure that when it did happen (and that would be IF it happened, for Biblical prophecy was conditional), people would be able, with 20/20 hindsight, to see the hand of God in it. This would fit the prophecies concerning the Messiah perfectly, as a virgin birth would have been quite insensible to anyone ahead of its occurrence, but the writers of the New Testament quite clearly understood it to be this way (as well as many others, too) when they SAW these prophecies fulfilled, which is why they went to so much trouble to quote them at length and at every turn. I think if the Christian world is guilty of ‘reading into the text’ the Messianic prophecies, they learned it from the Apostles, first. I did, anyway!
laurita hayes,
I’ll try to explain my view here. Whether one is a Trinitarian or not, one cannot escape the understanding that “the Holy Spirit” is somehow ‘God’s Spirit’ (“the power of the Most High” will “come upon” Mary). See also Matthew 1:18,20, 1:67, 12:32/Mark 3:29/Luke 12:10; etc. This indicates divine intervention in the conception of Jesus. Of course, I imported the concept of the Gospel of John’s “Word” here, construing John 1:14 to be the parallel to Luke 1:26-35.
As to Jesus’ lineage as being from the “root of Jesse” and from the Davidic line, I take this, not necessarily from the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, but from Isaiah 11:10/Romans 15:12 and various other NT Scriptures which affirm that Jesus is from David – though there were certainly Jewish leaders who called Jesus merely “the carpenter’s son”.
You wrote: …a virgin birth would have been quite insensible to anyone ahead of its occurrence, but the writers of the New Testament quite clearly understood it to be this way (as well as many others, too) when they SAW these prophecies fulfilled, which is why they went to so much trouble to quote them at length and at every turn. I think if the Christian world is guilty of ‘reading into the text’ the Messianic prophecies, they learned it from the Apostles, first. I did, anyway!
Amen to that!
No, the problem is the subsequent curse that eliminates the line of Joseph. Adoption is needed from the line of Mary so that Yeshua can still be in the Davidic line.
Wasn’t Herod the last of the enthroned line? “That half-Edomite” as he was, I have seen him referred to. And if Mary birthed Yeshua, why was adoption from her family an issue? And Yeshua is not only king, He is also priest, “after the order of Melchizidek”. Is there a verse outlining the curse on the Davidic line? I understood Yeshua to not be the product of ANY curse, and, as He was truly no bastard, but properly fathered – albeit divine – there would be no bastard’s curse, either, no matter what the neighbors surely whispered behind His back.
Skip, one more thing, and I sure would like to be set straight if I am just not understanding it, but it seems you are somehow agreeing to the common pretext that the Holy Spirit would have had to have DNA relations with Mary (hence the insistence I see you AND others making that the Holy Spirit would somehow need to be a “person” to accomplish this). This seems to be absurdity to me, compounded. To follow, if you can ‘prove’ that the Spirit is not a person, therefore, well, what? No DNA? I know it is rather late, and you may have been tired, but I am not following you or Craig, I think. What is this god person having sex (or DNA transference) with Mary thing?
As far as what that culture understood, they clearly considered Yeshua to be a bastard. What I think I need you to explain is what His followers would have understood. That, I see you make a lot of references to, as if we are supposed to somehow divine it, but I have never seen you tell us. Please, tell us!
Laurita I take the blame here. Betrothed and a virgin conception and birth… As was instructed not to have intercourse until after the time…
I for one accept God can do pretty much what He wants and we can do nothing about that. You say we need to consent… No record shows that either Joseph or Mary really could choose they just had to be obedient and submit.
That tells us something about God achieving His will..
As for half brother it does not have same bloodline from Solomon but impure linked linage.
Let’s ask what was the word spoken that created Adam… As it was not the same word that resulted in God breathing the breath of life into Adam.
What created Yeshua was Mary’s body what gave him divinity the HG. As for DNA that is a modern word I was using to highlight specific attributes added to the human entity we refer to as Yeshua.
Trust this may explain my line of thought.
Seeker, if Mary and Joseph had no choice, than the plan of salvation is in vain. The entire universe has been excruciatingly organized around the capacity for that choice, and predestination, as well as fate, is all they had and me, too! Back up a little here!
I am not saying that there is DNA transfer in the birth of Yeshua. What I am saying is that the idea that the Spirit of God is a “person” is a much later development of the Church. Even the early church fathers didn’t write about this idea. And if it is such a later development, can we then legitimately read it back into the text of the gospels? Shouldn’t we read the gospels as they would be understood by the original audience rather than by believers after the 5th century?
Perhaps I’m missing your point, Skip. I don’t see how an issue with first century readers/hearers understanding whether or not the Holy Spirit was a ‘person’ (or a neuter “it” – are you making this distinction as well?) in the Trinitarian “Godhead” would impact the meaning here. Is there a debate about whether the Holy Spirit is ‘God’s Spirit’ at all? In other words, I can understand if there are those who may initially think that the Holy Spirit is not part of a Trinity, but I cannot understand how anyone could construe the Holy Spirit as anything less than at least some aspect of God, perhaps somewhat akin to the Shekinah Glory. Hence, Jesus’ conception involved both God and humanity (Mary).
Almost universally understood is that the Gospels began in the form of oral teachings, which were later put into written form. Paul’s letters, written between circa AD 50 and 60, explained the role of the Holy Spirit in numerous places. Moreover, at least the Epistle to the Ephesians was assumed to be distributed throughout the region, not strictly to the Ephesian church; and in that letter are the explicit words “the Holy Spirit of God” (4:30).
I have ordered Marc Turnage’s book and will read it when it arrives. But concerning Today’s Word I am wondering about John the Baptist statements that Yeshua is the bridegroom with the bride and that he (John the Baptist) was the friend of the bridegroom. John 3:29.
The references in Jeremiah to “the voice of the bride groom and the voice of the bride,” to me indicate that there will be no new life or beginnings, but in John’s Gospel, with Yeshua the opposite is about to happen.
If this position is reasonable here, isn’t it also reasonable to apply the verse in Luke to Yeshua? Or am I missing something?
Chris Burgess,
Your analysis is absolutely correct. Luke 5:34 should be applied to the Messiah, contrary to Turnage. In addition your words regarding Jeremiah and the Gospel of John “to me indicate that there will be no new life or beginnings, but in John’s Gospel, with Yeshua the opposite is about to happen” are great observations, as well. However, keep in mind the consistent theme of ‘glorification’ in John’s Gospel. That is, Jesus is glorified on the cross (John 12:23, 28, 13:31). The cross brings new life (20:13-21:25 – and note 21:19)!
Craig on the wine sacks and new wine. We are all wine sacks filled with pure sap from the vine. Some of us prefer the Torah way others the Jesus way. Both good wines but not enjoyed the same depending on preference of calling at the time.
Jews will acknowledge Yeshua reality but debate connection to Torah which is true. Gentiles as myself find it easier to trust and believe rather than do and be…
Hello Chris,
We are and should be looking towards, if not crying out for restoration, firstly ourselves, personally, and then the whole of creation?
As throughout Scriptures, we see (more so in Jonah) when there is genuine repentance of turning back to Torah ways, there WILL be restoration. Jer 33:11 There will once again be singing and dancing in the streets of Yerushalem, and the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride.
There will always be new life and new beginnings! HalleluYAH!
Shalom!
Laurita how far back…
I hear arguments that God says My will I give you, your will I leave you.
I also hear free will is what distinguishes us from the animal kingdom…
The truth…
Only under controlled circumstances can we exercise free will…
For all those uncontrollable situations… Let thy will be done on earth as in heaven…
Free will can change and shape my now… I agree 100%. Our faith and hope vests in us assurance of these choses being sufficient for afterlife.
Seeker, the “controlled circumstances” are where He keeps the runway clear FOR our wills. We only enter into agreement with His will by choice. He cannot make any of us agree. Force is not how the Kingdom operates (force is the hallmark of that other kingdom). The kingdom operates on consequences of choices. Yes, He gets His way, but that way IS by letting us choose whether or not we want to be included in or out of His way. If we choose to be out of it, He agrees. Eventually. That is the purpose of the judgment, and the proclamation of the filthy and the righteous choices being stamped with the imprimatur of heaven.
Laurita I am with you to an extent I just choose that God keeps control as I am a bigger sinner than 99% of other believers.
And remember even though an servant from heaven preach another gospel than salvation through Yeshua let him be accursed…
Love your honest passionate responses.
Hey, Seeker, choosing for Him to ‘be in control’ is a way that just strikes my funny bone, for surely I am choosing to NOT be in control: as He always is. I also don’t choose to include Him: my only real choice is to exclude Him – rather, to exclude myself from Him. That choice I always have. Mary and Joseph had it, too. They could have said “no”. So can I. Wait, I already have, several times today already! (Not proud of that.)
Laurita insists BOTH Mary’s and Joseph’s lineage came through David but both genealogies (as recorded) plainly state that they are Joseph’s. And yet that cannot be. Except for two names in common, the rest of the names on the two lineages are completely different. As well, one has 25 generations and the other forty-one. And so, logically enough, that is why we speculate one is actually (somehow) Mary’s.
Somehow, something must have got lost in translation or in miscopying of the words themselves. We don’t like to concede that but sometimes we must. This is the case here.
Common belief is that Matthew’s genealogy is certainly that of Joseph’s and therefore Luke’s must somehow be Mary’s. This can be attempted if one applies some unfounded speculations to Luke’s genealogy but ultimately the suppositions are strained and unsatisfactory.
I believe a better theory exists, that the exact opposite is correct. It leaves Luke’s genealogy untouched as that of Jesus’ through David, Nathan and finally Joseph, his legal adoptive and earthly father. That means Matthew’s genealogy must be Mary’s, through David and Solomon.
The leap of faith we have to take in this scenario, but which will make everything make sense, is that one word has been mistranscribed in Matt 1:16. That word is the Greek word antros instead of patros. (Is that a stretch?) In other words, instead of . . .
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the “husband” of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
We should have
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the “father” of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Of course I am NOT saying that Mary’s husband was not named Joseph, I am only saying that Mary’s father was ALSO named Joseph. Is that a stretch? (Catholic tradition, for what it’s worth, calls him Joachim.)
This also solves the problem of a missing generation. Confirming his genealogy, Matthew immediately states it is composed of 3 sets of 14 generations. If Mary is not the son of the man named Joseph, then there is a missing generation.
So, although Luke and the first 18 verses of Matthew well document and lay special emphasis on Christ’s connection with David’s throne, where does Christ derive His title to that throne? Not from Joseph, for though he was Mary’s husband, Christ was not his son. And not from Mary, for though a descendant of David and Solomon, kings derive the title to the throne from their fathers. (And beside this there is the problem of the curse on Jeconiah’s line.)
Chapter one of Matthew is in two parts, the second part, the next 7 verses, reveal the answer to us. They are concerning His virgin birth and why it is so important. Verses 18-25 assert His Divine sonship, and that in a most categorical fashion. Exclusion of the sexual element is affirmed twice (vs18 and 25). His conception through the agency of the Holy Spirit is also affirmed twice (vs19 and 20). His birth from a virgin mother is stated once (v.23). And all this is shown to be in fulfillment of “what the Lord has spoken through the prophet.”
The author of Hebrews confirm it again.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”?
Ultimately, Jesus gets His title neither from Joseph or Mary but from His heavenly Father.
That was really well laid out, Dan. A lot there to clear things up for me. Still, Mary from Nathan would have bystepped the curse on Jechoniah, which would have come down through the father, you are right (Joseph not being the father, here), and thank you for refreshing me on that one. I was not remembering that. Thanks!
Dan thank you for the alternative view which sounds very logical.
Isn’t there the iniquity of assumptions/ presumption?
Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins; Let them not rule over me;
Then I will be complete/ whole/ blameless/ clean/ upright.
And I shall be acquitted of great transgression. Psalm 19:13
The error and mistake is that there is a failure to approach Scripture from the understanding, and view, that every Biblical author, from Moses to John, writes FROM the Jewish (or Hebraic) perspective.
In fact, the roots to this non-Jewish (or anti-Jewish) perspective can be traced all the way back to the early centuries of the Church, and it results from the almost unanimously bitter anti-Judaic, anti-Semitic worldview taken by the early “church fathers” who sometimes openly stated that they wished to erase all remnants of Judaic thought from the “Christian” religion.
The entire Bible (“Old” and “New Testament”) is written by Jews, for Jews, and with an ENTIRELY Jewish viewpoint. How could Christian leaders be so blind as to institute doctrines, which necessarily kill the intent and motive of even the Gospels?
WHEN did the adopted brother (grafted-in), gain the right to steal the inheritance from the born-in (chosen) brother?
The doctrine of Constantine and others where it concerns this are absolutely incorrect
The doctrines of the Church are not only faulty but polluting the Scriptures with deliberate anti-Hebraic interpretations; modern day Christian denominations actually derives from the Council at Nicea and similar conclaves, and not from Yeshua!
There seems to be a deep, unexplainable, often unconscious, resentment against even the mere suggestion of such things. To me, this is evidence of the Satanic power of anti-Semitism that dwells in the heart of many who otherwise dare claim to follow a Jewish Lord and Savior.
Paul had neither the right nor the means to create an anti-Hebraic or non-Hebraic Biblical mindset.
Any of Paul’s words to this effect must be considered a poor interpretation of his words.
It should now be fairly apparent that opposition to the study of Scripture through a Hebraic mindset is absurd, foolish, even anti-Messiah.
Yeshua never had the authority to counter anything God, his Father, ever said! Therefore, anyone who says that any part of the Law is “superceded” because of Yeshua or the crucifixion is teaching incorrect doctrine, and that person does so because he or she has approached the Bible from a NON-HEBRAIC MInDSET!.
You have been trying to study the night sky with a cheap pair of lenses!
Since YHWH chose the Hebrew mindset through which to present His Truth, I believe it is imperative for us to understand that mindset. – adapted from Tom Wise
Shalom!
Eloquently put. Such a shame that for 2000 years the Church has adopted, explicitly or implicitly, this anti-Jewish point of view in almost all of its doctrinal development. The consequences for the ordinary believer have been tragic.
Todah rabah, Skip, part of that understanding comes from the challenging paradigm change from the marvellous daily TWs. Thankfully I was not ingrained in Christianity from the very start of my journey. Much appreciation for your calling and efforts in fulfilling it!.
ABBA’s blessings and protection upon you and your loved ones always!
Acts 18 states some things about Paul’s preaching about the Messiah that were construed as him trying to persuade people to worship God contrary to the Law. What was it about Paul’s preaching about Christ that had these Jews in Corinth angry at Paul?
So, what was it about Paul’s preaching about the Messiah that was understood as him persuading the Corinthians to worship YHVH contrary to the Law?
I think Turnage should be challenged on this: …within Jewish tradition, the bridegroom never refers to the Messiah. Luke (4:16-21) records Yeshua quoting Isaiah 61:1-2 as being fulfilled in Himself; and in Isaiah 61:10 we have a reference to “bridegroom”:
Of course, one will quickly note that the reference to bridegroom (and bride) is descriptive of God’s ‘clothing’ given to the Messiah. J. Alec Moyter (Isaiah, TOTC {Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999}, p 430) opines that garments of salvation refer to the Savior being fitted for the task of Redeemer and is “that which meets our need”, while a robe of righteousness is “what meets the LORD’s holy standards”. Of the bridegroom…bride motif Moyter states, “as their garments proclaim to all that they are bridegroom and bride and announce their commitment to marriage, so with the same care the Lord has fitted his Anointed One for the saving work.”
Admittedly, that’s not actually descriptive of the Messiah Himself. However, in 62:4-5 there’s another reference to bridegroom:
Here we have God correlated with bridegroom and “you”, i.e. Jerusalem, correlated with bride. Forgoing any kind of interpretation on the text specifically, I think we can safely say that the context refers to salvation generally. Moreover, this seems to be referenced, or at least alluded to, in Rev. 21:2 (but doesn’t the New Jerusalem include non-Jews as well?).
Putting aside Luke 5:34 for the moment, does any of this pertain to the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)? Does any of this bear upon Yeshua as bridegroom according to John the Baptist (John 3:29)? Or the Wedding Feast of the Lamb and His bride (Rev 19:6-9). Or Ephesians 5:25-33, which correlates Christ and the church in a context of marriage relationships?
I suppose I’ll ask a general question: Do the writings of the NT constitute “Jewish tradition”?
The Hebrew word for marriage לקח laqach is the same word for doctrine and teaching. Eating is a metaphor for learning. The word amar for ‘said (also word)’ as in God said:Let there be light is the same word as lamb. God created light by the word/lamb. The Lamb is the creator. So the marriage supper of the lamb is the teaching of the doctrine of the creator which was the explosion of doctrine that occurred at the cross when the mystery which had been hidden from the beginning was revealed. The mystery was kept hidden, and Jesus taught in parables so that they would not believe, because he had to die alone. Jerusalem means teaching of peace. Jesus ushered in the New Jerusalem when he said “You have had heard… but I say…” The Jewish tradition would NOT include a picture of the the bridegroom since that was part of the mystery. However we CAN trace it through the SOD of the OT. Every man in the OT is Christ, and every woman is the church. The bride of Christ is the fellowship of the mystery (Eph 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:) I will stop posting since it appears we are going different directions. I enjoy much of what you have to say. Blessings.
Oh, and on the Trinity: The rabbis DO teach that God has a triune nature. They just don’t share that teaching with Gentiles; particularly Christians. They do not verbalize it as three persons. But consider, the word for Father ab.. has gematria of 3. There are three things which were not created. Elohim, the Spirit and the waters. The word for waters is mayim and has a metaphor for Father and Son in the mem and final mem. Jesus said that he Father was Spirit and the Son was truth, and he told the woman at Sychar that though she worshiped on the mountain, she would worship in Spirit and truth. This teaching was repeated in the parable of the mustard seed, where is you have faith like that you would move the mountain to the waters/sea. Hmm.. might as well share the parable:
The parable of the mustard seed is taught this way by the Greek (Gentile) church: The kingdom starts off small and grows larger and larger. If we have faith like the seed we can do miracles that no one seems to be able to do (move the mountain to the sea). We argue if the birds are angels, demons, or Gentiles. Then we wonder, and or defend, that Jesus said it was the smallest seed, when everyone else knows its not. This is NOT biblical preaching!
Hear the WORD of the LORD!
Jesus was the seed of the woman in Genesis. He was the least of all the seed because he served us all through his death on the cross. The word for ‘mustard’ in Greek is similar to ‘bruised by anger’ in Hebrew. The prophecy of the seed of the woman speaks of his incarnation, kenosis, tribulation, temptation and final obedience on the cross.
The seed (Jesus) grew to be the great herb. The grass was given to cattle to eat, and the herbs were given to men to eat. The greatest thing men can eat is the body of Christ. He is the great herb. Eating is a metaphor for learning, so he became the great teacher. We also celebrate the cattle eating the grass when we put baby Jesus in the manger with the grass. We have the same symbol of eating his body at the beginning of his life with the grass, as we have at the end of his life with the bread.
The tree is the cross… and those birds? If you live in the spirit you rest in the cross.
Lets move a mountain. The two mem’s in the Hebrew word for waters מים have metaphoric meaning for the Father and the Son. The Father is Spirit and the Son is Truth. Jesus told the woman at Sychar that though she worshiped on the mountain, she would worship in Spirit and Truth. The mountain would be moved to the water.
The parable of the mustard seed speaks of Christ at every turn and is revealed by the word itself. The parable contains a riddle:
Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;
This is using he Hebrew hermeneutic. I hope it blesses you.
Blesses me.
The question of the Trinity – for me, right now, anyhow – is whether person (form) determines function, or whether function (such as creation, etc.) determines form of Person(s). (Perhaps it may depend on whether you were trying to put it through a Greek-type lens or not. ) Anyhow, an “express image”, then, would refer to a manifestation (person) of a particular function, such as Salvation or Wisdom or Comforter, say. For example, my identity as a person you could say is an express image of the function that was designed for me in the mind of my Creator. Perhaps a Greek might say, however, that there is an ideal ‘form’ (destiny?) of Laurita-ness that I must strive (function) to ‘fulfill’. To the Greek mind, of which i am trying to learn (thanks to Skip), a person was an ideal form of which some people were more idealized (perfect, or, godlike) than others. The function, or, choice/action of that person was outlined by that ideal form, or KIND of person, which the actions strove to realize, but the Hebrew, so I am trying to understand, was focused solely on that action, or function, as a means of determining what kind of person they were. Person, to a Hebrew, then (and this would include the Person of God, too), would be a derivative of what they DID. Just about polar opposite, as far as I can tell, from the Greek. The hellenization of the Hebrew, then, would have been a sharp about-turn in the very way the mind processed the perception of reality itself.
From what I understand, the Hebrew mind was not very concerned with form, as they understood reality, according to Skip, anyway (and he can correct me) in terms of action,. or function, which could take any number of forms (past tense, or, historical manifestation in time/space) according to the expression of that function in that time/space. And, I could be in a completely different place with this tomorrow, hopefully with a good deal of help from my friends.
Thank you. You gave me quite a lot to chew on.
An interesting insight. If Greek thought follows Plato and conceptualizes “ideal” forms, then it follows that the son, as the “ideal” form, must be identical to the Father. After all, there can be only ONE “ideal” form. However, even in Greek thinking, if we postulate “manifested” forms, we are not required to conclude that these manifestation are exact replicas of the “ideal.” In this case, if Yeshua is a manifestation of the form of YHVH, manifested for a particular purpose, then it does not necessarily follow that he is the exact replication of the Father. His manifestation serves a unique, and perhaps different, purpose. But, as you point out, Hebrew is more about function and than, although I could argue that the conceptualization of “manifested” form is essentially the same as the Hebrew idea.
You’re right! This keeps us out of Gnosticism, which, being Greek, had to ‘keep’ God from all contamination of replication, but if we are like the Ultimate Function when we function like Him, there is no such risk. I think it also keeps us from the arrogance of thinking that we can become gods, too. Both errors are based on the idea that God is an ideal form, and so both, like the classic dualistic dialectic conclusions that they are, arise out of the same source.
I think I am finding this true of all error, for error fractures what God put together, and the diabolic dialectic takes over from there, convincing us that one side of that fracture must battle the other for the ‘win’. I have learned to be suspicious when I see opposites of ANYTHING, for I have found no such dueling dualism in nature anywhere. I think this stuff can only be made up in the confused heads of humans, of which Marx, who was the father of the modern understanding of the dialectic, was certainly exhibit A.
The Scriptural dualism is not of opposites, but of something we think is an opposite, which God reconciled on the cross. Holiness (separates), and Love (draws together) are taught as two streams in scripture because WE think they are opposites. All of the laws against mixing are metaphors for not mixing Holiness and Love. We cannot mix them because we mess it up when we do.
When we see a judge release a criminal, we do not proclaim what wonderful mercy there is, but how there is no justice.
If we are the criminal and do not get to go free, we do not declare that there is wonderful justice, we complain that there is no mercy.
God first teaches us holiness through the law and judgement, and he covers us with his love and teaches us grace through the law and sacrifices. Then, the father, who no man has seen, is made known as BOTH Holy and Love through the word, works and life of the son culminated on the cross.
The teaching is that we cannot have intimacy with God if we treat him as a peer and do not recognize his Holiness. And that Holiness and Love are a perfect unity in God.
Western thought IS Greek thought, so you probably already think like a Greek. Shall we test it?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
If your answer is “To get to the other side.” Then you are Greek.
However, is your answer is “To get to the other side. ” You think like a Hebrew.
I know that sounds like nonsense. But the Greek and the Hebrew have two diffeent answers using the exact same words.
When someone dies, we say they “went tot he other side”. So when you see a chicken carcass in the road, you ask why the chicken crossed the road.
The Greek answer is literal and precise. The Hebrew answer is couched in riddle and metaphor (even double-entendre).
The Hebrew knows and understands the Greek answer It is called Pashat. But the hidden prophetic riddle is called SOD. To the Hebrew, the SOD IS Meshiach.
There is evidence that the NT is actually a translation of the Hebrew teaching of the Apostles. Much is gaied by reverse translating it before correlating with the OT.
The Greek church presumes that the NT authors got a taste of omniscience in order to write. The Hebrew church was able to understand Christ by the OT alone, because they understood the rich prophetic prophecy of the SOD. The ‘stuff’ in the NT is there as a sample of HOW Jesus fulfilled prophecy. But to the Greeks it appears now to be a continuing revelation.
They see Jesus in the temple at 12 yrs of age as a novel story of his youth, whereas the Hebrew sees is as the fulfillment of the prophecy contained in the SOD of the battle of the 9 kings of Chedorlaomer.
The Greek thinks Yeshua is ‘close enough’ to Emmanuel to fulfill prophecy even though they are different names. The Hebrew sees that Yeshua is Yahweh with a marriage in his heart, and also ‘God humbled’ in word play fulfilling the riddle that God is with us.
The Greek assumes that the word mammon comes from Syraic or some other foreign tongue and interprets it as money. The Hebrew see is comes from the Hebrew word for ‘the believing ones’. Jesus taught that you can’t serve God and self, but the Greeks argue about how much money you can have.
The Gentiles did not want to become Hebrew, so they stuck their fingers in their ears while Paul attempted to teach them the SOD but he finally gave up and chose to know nothing but Christ and him crucified. The NT is a Commentary on the OT written for a childish Greek church.
The Greeks did everything they were warned against: Nicolaitans (conquerors of he laity) set up the priesthood modeled after the Jewish priests. The Judaisers collaborated with them. Do you really think the fisherman Peter ever wore a mitred hat? They became compromised with the government adopting the doctrine of Balaam. And they missed the point of the teaching of love and loving your enemies and were willing to kill those who disagreed. By 400 AD they had chased removed everything that looked Hebrew from the church and Augustine even arrogantly taught that the Septuagint was more reliable than the original Hebrew texts.
We place way too much emphasis on the Greek church. I focus on learning to think Hebrew. the Greek language is rigid and precise, he Hebrew produces a magnificent tapestry with the literal-historical truth on one side and a picture of Christ on the other.
Compare the teaching you have heard fro the best Greek theologians, on the parable of the mustard seed to the picture of Christ woven in the text from the rest of scripture. The Greek see that the kingdom gets bigger and can’t agree on anything else. they use Greek logic ad rhetoric to prove they are more clever than the next guy. The Hebrew interpretation contains no opinion; only observations from the rest of scripture. It is a correlation of metaphor used consistently throughout the scripture.
Bob, could you just write every day?
I’m sorry I lost track of this forum. And I am still not quite sure how welcome I am. So I try to tip toe. You folks apparently have a community, and I am an outsider.
Bob
You need not tip toe as we (I for one) need open honest responses to understand and change. Greek answer factual and Hebraic thought provoking sounds much like a Rabbi responding to a comment asking more and more questions until you cannot answer then just a hint to investigate further. Does frustrate a Greek minded individual chasing for answers or improvement instead of waiting for it as God orchestrates where it bests suits His purpose.
I concur with Laurita write we will respond as we have questions…
“Hebraic thought provoking sounds much like a Rabbi responding to a comment asking more and more questions until you cannot answer then just a hint to investigate further.”
I believe that Rabbis mimic Jesus in the temple when he was 12. He was preparing to become a man. In many of the Jewish rituals the child asks questions of the elders.
One of the likely questions was :What are these stones? The typical answer would have been: They are a pile of rocks marking where we came into the promised land by the hand of God.
But Jesus, understanding or at least beginning to see, the childish riddle, or the SOD of scripture would likely have asked: Yes, but what of the several stones Jacob used as a pillow which became on stone when he awoke? What of the stone that followed in the desert and had produced life-saving water when struck? What of David’s five smooth stones that he kept in his shepherd’s vessel?
As he asked the questions, the teachers would have seen new shadows of Meshiach with each. And what of the stone itself? The word stone is aben. Ab is father, ben is son, God said that He is our Rock. I am told I am his son. What of that? What happens to the Father and Son when the stone is split?
They had the next 18 years to pervert what they had learned so that he would call them liars rather than misguided teachers.
Thank you Bob
Stone a topic for another day – Father and Son… Very interesting lets exegesis flow more and more through my Greek mind…
The first reference in the SOD to man being the bride of God occurs in : Ge 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
The Hebrew word for ‘took’ also means ‘married’. Thereafter, adultery is used as a metaphor for idolatry.
Many Hebrew words have multiple meanings, reading Ge 2:20
Ge 2:21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
in the double entendre:
God caused the man to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind.
Naturally, the man is Christ, he died according to the Father’s will, he delivered mankind. The church is his bride, and that limping side?
At Gethsemane Jesus caused his human ‘side’, his will, to limp in order to be obedient. This is prefigured by the limping side of the seed of the woman due to his bruised heel, and Jacobs withered thigh which caused him to limp.
I lied… Adam and Eve are a prefigure of Christ and his bride in Ge 1. The church is the virgin bride of Christ and together they are fruitful by the fruit of the spirit, and multiply by teaching. Their increase is a spiritual increase, not a physical one.