All the Pieces (1)
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21 NASB
Interpretation – Sometimes we miss important connections in thought patterns simply because English uses different words to translate Greek constructions. In this case, the Greek word, epilyseos (from epilysis) is derived from a root lyo, meaning “to loose’” and is related to the word lytron which is related to three Hebrew words, koper, ga’al and padah. As you will notice, all of the Hebrew words are about ransom and atonement. The Greek idea behind “interpretation” is connected to “ransom.” Peter uses a word that should point us to a much deeper connection. No prophetic text is a matter of one’s own interpretation. Rather, the prophecies are about God “releasing” His words through the prophets, that is, resolving or explaining what He means by using the prophets to speak for Him. According to Peter, biblical prophecy is a matter of God’s explanation, not Man’s.
Why would Peter feel as if he had to make such a claim? Didn’t everyone believe that the Prophets spoke on God’s behalf? The answer is, “No.” As we recently learned, a large contingent of Jews, the Sadducees, did not believe that the prophets spoke God’s words. They believed that what the Prophets said was, in fact, the opinion of Man. Peter directly contradicts this theological view. But don’t jump to conclusions. Peter is obviously not speaking about anything more than prophecy. He is not claiming that his own letter or the writings of the apostles or even the Writings of the Tanakh are God’s own interpretation of events. Today the canon includes all this, but that doesn’t mean that Peter was making that claim. He is interested in combating the Sadducees’ view, primarily because at the center of that view was a denial of the resurrection. Peter writes like a Pharisee, and his canon is much larger than the canon of his opponents.
This raises some important questions for us. The first is, “Can we really understand what Peter is saying if we don’t have the same perspective that he did?” Obviously, we cannot. If we attempt to interpret Peter’s words with our point-of-view, we will read into his letter more than he intended. We must not assume that our theology today was his theology two thousand years ago. This helps us realize that his hermeneutic depended on a Pharisaic view of the Scripture. And that leads us to the second question.
“Do we really know what the Pharisees thought of Scripture if we do not read their own literature?” The Christian Church has, in general, ignored all of the intertestamental literature produced between the end of the prophets and the beginning of the gospels. But this is precisely the literature that allows Peter to make his claim. During this time the Pharisaic interpretative method was developed and it resulted in fundamentally important doctrines that are the foundations of the apostles thinking. How can we dismiss this critical piece of the puzzle? The answer, unfortunately, is anti-Semitic. The Church has dismissed this material because it is Jewish. As a result, we are extremely impoverished. We cannot explain how Peter arrived at his conclusion, or even why it was important to state it. We are hamstrung because we don’t have all the pieces. We do not interpret the Bible as the apostles did because we are missing four hundred years of information.
Finally, of course, is the observation that Peter is not speaking about our Bible. He is writing about the Hebrew Scriptures. He says nothing that would allow us to conclude that his words, or the words of his contemporaries, are also God’s words. This raises our last question. “Can we demonstrate the veracity of our theological claims from the Tanakh and the intertestamental material alone?” In other words, if we did not have one single verse from any of the “New Testament,” could we still show that Yeshua is the Messiah, that God has fulfilled His word, that death has been overcome, that the Kingdom will reign, etc.? Are we so hampered without the work of the Sages and the rabbis that we will have to assert the divine authority of the “New Testament,” or are we able to argue with Peter that the Law and the Prophets is enough?
Topical Index: 2 Peter 1:20-21, interpretation, epilysis, koper, ga’al, padah, release, Pharisees
They are enough, and the New Testament is ‘but commentary’ to the Tanakh, BUT, because it IS that commentary, we can safely rest assured that what it tells us is true, also.
One more thing: Yeshua was a Prophet “like unto Moses”, and His words in the Gospels can be safely taken as the prophecies (revelations of His Father’s will”) that they were intended to convey. BUT, Peter, Paul, Jude and others, in quoting those Old and intertestamental sources, and explaining and expounding on those Scriptures; in particular Daniel (in the case of John), end up telling us a whole lot of information about YHVH’s will for the future. Most importantly, the Second Coming of Yeshua. If you don’t want to refer to this body of literature as prophecy, then I really do want to know what to call these writings, and how to think about them?
What are you really trying to say?
Good morning Laurita, What I find interesting here is that the issue between the Pharisees and Sadducees turns out to be exactly the same thing as the issue between the Pharisees and what we term as “new testament” authors. It’s a matter of foundational issues, but a house isn’t finished if it’s only a foundation and the foundation determines the house. If nothing else, what Skip is pointing out is a true measuring stick to ascertain the validity of what we hold on to as truth. It isn’t about questioning the validity of something, as much as it is about adhering validity. If we can’t find the basic tenants of our faith in the law and confirmed in the prophets and writings, we might have a problem. 🙂
YHWH bless you and keep you….
Robert, I enthusiastically agree that we must compare all what we find in the New vigorously with the Old as the true basis for our faith. The best examples of that, though, are the New writers themselves! They quote and quote. In fact, for example, if Matthew had not quoted the Old texts about the virgin birth in exactly the place and way that he did, we might not even be making that connection today. Revelation can ONLY be understood if you lay it over the book of Daniel, for example, even though I frankly do not see a whole lot of people seriously trying to do that today. But, it is BECAUSE when I go and do that, and see the continuity, that I understand why the books of the New have been canonized: they sync perfectly with the Old. But, I am certainly not the only person who has ever appreciated that fact. We agree.
I guess what I am not following, however, is your first comment about “the issue between the Pharisees and Sadducees turns out to be exactly the same thing as the issue between the Pharisees and what we term as “new testament” authors. What issue are you talking about? The resurrection?
I’m sorry that I was somewhat vague on that but I’ll try to explain. The Sadducees, rightly, held to the law as authoritive, however they were unable to determine the extensions relating to that basic authority. They held the law in such high regard that they couldn’t allow that there was more to it than what was apparent on the face of it. Same trap the Pharisees fell into, and by the way, how do we fare today with the “new testament”?
Then we agree. The New Testament is just a “face” of the Old. To understand what the New is all about, we must turn to that Old for an explanation. The Old gave us a complete picture of the New. For example, the entire economy of Israel, from the Law to the Tabernacle, was a perfect template of the life of Yeshua. Without it, His life, as merely read in the New (as many people try to do today) remains a mystery. You have to have the Old before you can see what any of the New could possibly be about!
The Sadducees were literalists, I think you were trying to say. Perhaps they would have been the ones to miss the point Yeshua was trying to make when he quoted a popular Pharisaical story of the day – the story of Lazarus and Abraham – about mercy. It most certainly was not an original literal ‘revelation’ about life after death, as it does not correspond, if taken literally, to anything in the Tanakh. But, then, everyone in that audience would have understood what He meant, about that mercy. Except perhaps the Sadducees – and certain people today who do not think that you have to collate the New over the Old (lol)? Context. The Old IS the context for that New, and the New fits it perfectly. Not a coincidence?
So to take it a little farther, if the concept of resurrection is built on the concept of mercy. (It’s not necessarily over when we break the given structure) and mercy is built on true repentance. The structure is defined and put in place right from the beginning. The question for the sadducees is if what the prophets declared (in the name of God) is in alignment with that primary structure, not necessarily a “verbatim” interpretation but a working of the intent given by God. You can search the law all you want for an explicit description of resurrection and come up empty and yet it’s there right from page one. The same problem exists with the Pharisees (modern and ancient) concerning the apostolic writings, and with the modern form of Christianity as well. The question for us is whether our idea of resurrection, mercy, and repentance lines up with what was previously given, or if we have replaced the foundation with another. True equity confirms both parties.
Wow! That’s deep! I wish you could write more about that, Robert. You could consider emailing it to me if you want. I really like what you said.
I will email you, however, if you could afford me a couple days to formulate my thoughts, it would be appreciated.
Good Morning, Laurita!
I will attempt to answer your question, and by no means am I trying to speak for Skip, but here is my take on the NT.
Personally, other than John’s Revelation, I don’t think the NT is at the same level as the Tanakh — the Torah especially. How can I say that? Look at how the letters of the NT were handled compared to the Tanakh. The Dead Sea Scrolls show us that there were only minor changes (errors?) in how it was copied. Now look at the NT letters. There are literally thousands of fragments of various manuscripts — all with multiple differences between them. If those in the Apostolic age thought that the letters were “God inspired” don’t you think they would have handled them the same way as they did the Tanakh? I would think so. But that’s not what happened. They looked at the writings as nothing more than letters explaining what Yeshua did and said (which of course is very important). As time when on, additional notes were added in the margins to explain what was once understood by the original audience, but was not understood by the new audience. Yes, there were “notes in the margins” of the Tanakh, but they stayed in the margins (Talmud, midrashim, etc), and never made it into the scripture itself. Whereas, the notes were added to the “scripture” of the NT. Hopefully, I am explaining this properly/effectively.
In the end, I do agree with you, that the NT is important, but going back to Skip’s point, Peter did not think the letter he was writing was inspired — he was simply writing a letter. He understood that the only scripture was the Tanakh. Can we find Yeshua using only the Tanakh? Or even more importantly, can we lead others to Yeshua using only the Tanakh? Paul certainly did.
Rick, I hope a real scholar (that would NOT be me!) can help us out here. You and Robert are much more studied than myself, I am sure. I do want to say something. I feel that it is in defense of the New Testament. First, the early church was rife with error from its inception. Paul laments this a lot. Second, there has never been a more concerted effort on this planet to obliterate and destroy truth and history than the Holy Roman Empire made. Its hatred of the Scripture is well documented and its perversion of and supplanting of that Scripture is also well documented; not least by itself in its arrogance. We have the Catholic Church to blame for the majority of our woes today; indeed, I am going to go so far as to say that it is probably the main vector of practically all of the error and heresy that Paul documented was being fomented during his life. I know that is a strong statement, and I also know that it is not popular to be a Protestant today, but I still am that dinosaur. I do know that we cannot trust that institution, with such a history as it has, as a reliable source when it comes to Scripture!
Also, I want to say something else, and that is that we have more copies of the documents called the New Testament canon than of any other ancient literature. We in the corrupted West cannot blithely pass over the fact that many of the most reliable copies have been preserved in the East, outside the jurisdiction of the West. (Wonder why?!) Yes, the East followed the corruption, too. But, YHVH has told us that He jealously guards His Word, and that would include the Word in the narrative of His Son. He has guarded the Tanakh, that is clear, but no one can say that it is not a miracle that the New canon has survived such a slaughter, also. I have faith that He would not be so careless about the repository of His Word, and most emphatically, the repository of the life of His Son, which is that New Testament. Why would He not care about that, when He promised that He would? I choose to believe his promise. You can talk about differences of translation and errors, but when you actually study the nature of those discrepancies, and follow the history of those different copies, it is not hard to find that what was kept as the originals is marvelously consistent, and the inconsistencies are all correctable by other sources. Do not carelessly dismiss this consistency!
The history of that entire Book’s preservation has filled many a thrilling account, and it is an amazing story that more people should study. I believe that if you have not studied that history, you are not going to be able to place a correct emphasis on its relative validity, either. I know it is popular to question the New Testament today, and criticize it, but I also think it is not possible to question the New without eventually bringing into question the Old, because it hangs so tightly upon it. Many hammers, as an old poet observed, have already been worn out on this anvil over the millenia. What makes us think we are going to produce a better hammer?
What Laurita said. It least in large part.
Rick,
I’d like to address a few things, if I may, regarding what you wrote here. First of all, whether or not Peter knew he was actually writing Scripture I don’t think can be determined either way; however, Peter himself makes the claim, right in this very epistle, that Paul’s writings were indeed Scripture, placing them at the same level of authority as the Tanakh (2 Peter 3:14-16).
Secondly, comparing the variances between the DSS and the Tanakh (presumably the Masoretic Text) with the variances between the total of extant NT manuscripts with what is presumed the original NT is hardly fair. Would it not be fairer to compare one manuscript to the section, book or entire NT that we assume to be ‘original’ in the NA28/UBS5? In other words, wouldn’t it be fairer to compare the variances of, say, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus with the NA28/UBS5 and then comparing this variance to the variance between the DSS and Tanakh (again, presumably the Masoretic Text)?
Thirdly, opinions vary on the extent of the variances between the DSS and the MT. By some accounts there is a fair amount of variance (though not enough to be of real consequence), by others it’s not as much. Not being a scholar myself, I’m not qualified to answer this either way.
Fourthly, the MT, though very similar to the LXX (Septuagint) in content, is at variance with it in some areas. Does this mean the LXX is wrong, or is the MT wrong? I don’t think we can know for sure. I’m speaking primarily of these texts which are not in common with the DSS.
Fifth, most scholars point that there is an amazing level of consistency in the NT manuscripts (and this is an area I have studied at least a little), when obvious blunders like spelling errors, duplication and omission (in cases of repetition in which this would be a reasonable error to make) are taken into account. The way I see it, the bottom line is that both the OT and NT are remarkably well preserved.
Just a comment on the claim that Peter endorsed Paul’s epistles as holy Scripture. The Greek can also be read, “The remaining writings,” without the intention of declaring Paul’s letters as equivalent to the Tanakh. In fact, since Peter does not use “holy” in the phrase, the question about what Peter actually meant can’t be resolved from the text alone. It requires the assumption that graphe in this context must mean Scripture. It is hard to imagine that any orthodox Jew of the first century would consider any contemporary work on the same ground as the Tanakh. We must be careful that our translations don’t take something for granted that stretches the cultural background of the authors. The fact that Paul never claims his own work is equal to the Tanakh isn’t surprising. His “bible” was the Tanakh, not his own letters. That doesn’t mean his letters were not treated as extremely valuable. But they could have been viewed as similar to the works of the sages rather than the revelation to Moses.
Yes, it’s true the word “holy” is not used here; however, what other “remaining” writings (graphe) would be of such importance that the “ignorant and unstable” would distort “to their own destruction“? Moreover, Peter describes these letters as having been written (egrapsen) as per “the wisdom given [Paul]” in verse 15. Now, taking verse 15 by itself we cannot determine that this is indeed Scripture; but, when added to the words in verse 16 (“to their own destruction”), I’d think logic would indicate that Peter indeed deemed these letters to be Scripture (“the remaining graphe”). Again, if not Scripture, then what other writings would be understood as bringing destruction upon those who would distort said writings?
So is an authoritive (true) explanation of scripture the same as scripture? There’s a Pandora’s box for you.
1Tim. 3:16, 17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Can the New Testament, including Yeshua’s teachings in the Gospels, be considered this? Did He not teach “with authority”? Did He not accomplish all the above? Did Paul? Did Peter? Can we not use what is in that Good Book with confidence to answer all questions pertaining to the content of that Book? Weren’t we told to do that? Does not the Book pass its own tests?
Good points Laurita. Yes, He did totally teach with authority as did the Apostles. The words which they spoke and wrote were done so by the same Spirit that carried along the prophets of the Tanach. Yes, I do totally see the words of Yeshua as authoritative and “Scripture”. As are those of the Apostles.
If we follow the notion that Peter wasn’t inferring that the writings of Paul were scripture by saying he could have meant “remaining writings” since there was no holy attached to it, then wouldn’t we have to apply the same to 1Tim? I mean it doesn’t say holy either.
Does not the book pass it’s own tests? of course it does Laurita, but an authorities teaching on scripture is not the same as scripture. Did we think that the law of not muzzling the ox, as it treads out the grain was about being nice to animals? Or is it about the reproduction of kinds as proclaimed in Gen. 1? Now of course it can be “twisted” to serve an alternative purpose. What’s the original intent?
Here’s a Pandora’s box for you: If what is know as the New Testament is really just merely ‘commentary on the Tanakh’, where is the history of the earthly life of the Messiah in the Tanakh as shown in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (not to mention Acts and Revelation)? In a ‘red letter’ New Testament, where are these words, e.g, the parables, in the Tanakh, excepting Messiah’s quotes, or allusions to the Tanakh?
Ok, so I never said, or implied, that the New Testament is “merely” a commentary on the Old Testament. I simply asked a question. Is authoritive commentary on scripture the same as scripture. To respond with an alternative quip is not a consideration of the question. Here’s the deal Craig, if you want to open that box, where does it start and stop. Are the modern or ancient commentaries in the same catagory, or is it just the ones you agree with? What’s the basis of the formation of the minute of application, does it rest on the “twisting” of truth to the benefit of those who have deemed themselves the declares of authority, or does it rest in the declared will of God? Isn’t John Macauthors commentary just as “inspired” as Paul’s, after all the Holy Spirit can lead both. But, in regards to the question as to whether the “Old Testament” describes the life and ministry of the Messiah, yes it does, and it does so in detail. Not that it mentions his interaction with people and proclaimed authorities verbatim (I don’t like using the same terms as in a previous post) but rather it describes the method and intent of God as laid out in the law and prophets. Yeshua said that the scriptures declare him, go find that, then come back and talk to me.
Robert,
I chose specifically not to open up your Pandora’s box. Rather, I posed one for you to open instead, should you want.
So, then I’m mistaken that you deem the NT as merely commentary on the OT. Then Paul’s words really are Scripture on par with the Tanakh. Well then, why did you try to compare John MacArthur’s commentary – which is a mere commentary – with Paul’s writings? Which is it? Are Paul’s writings Scripture on par with the Tanakh or are they just commentary like MacArthur’s words?
Holy Spirit inspired (“God-breathed”, or “God-spiritied”, theopneustos – 2 Tim 3:16) Scripture is vastly different than mere men writing commentary.
Of course the OT declares Yeshua/Jesus. Jesus spoke those words before the NT was written, so, obviously, the Scriptures to which He referred were the OT. Does this mean the NT does not declare Messiah, or that they only do so specifically when they quote the OT? If that’s the case, what about the times when Jesus’ words are not even in the Tanakh, such as His prediction of the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6)? What about Messiah’s spoken words post-resurrection (Rev 1:17-18; Rev 22:12-13 and following)?
Craig, you either miss my point or are avoiding the issue raised. The question still remains, what is deemed as scripture and by what authority is it deemed as such. Aside from human formed canons, what is the biblical standard that raises a particular writing to the level of scripture? That’s what I asked you to consider, not for arguments sake, but for consideration. If you have a consideration to return, I’d love to hear it, the rest is just fluff right now because it doesn’t address the fundamental point.
I just checked all 50 occurrences of graphe in the NT (only the noun form, excluding any of the verbal forms), and only one modifies graphe with “holy” (Romans 1:2). All but three are prefaced with the article (“the”): Romans 16:26, though it is modified by “prophetic”, making it clear that “Scripture” is the correct rendering; 1 Peter 2:6 which is part of a prepositional phrase (“in Scripture”) preceding an OT quote, thus making it clear that “Scripture” is correct; and, 2 Peter 1:20 which is modified with “prophecy” (“prophecy of Scripture”) and, of course, the context makes it clear that “Scripture” is the proper translation. Setting aside 2 Peter 3:16 for the moment, all others can definitively be concluded as referring to Scripture by the relative contexts.
This means that 49 of the 50 usages of graphe can very clearly be understood as properly rendered “Scripture”. 2 Peter 3:16, though not modified by any of the words noted above or followed by an OT quote, IS prefaced with the article (“the remaining graphe“). Surely this is significant. If we assume that this particular use of graphe does not mean “Scripture”, this would be the only time in the entire NT that the word does not refer to Scripture. That would be an exceptional use indeed.
I’m not sure how this passage in second Peter is construed as Peter proclaiming that Paul’s letters are scripture. The way I’m reading it is that Peter speaks of Paul’s letters as teaching from scripture, i.e. “speaking in them concerning these things”…which are the coming Day of the LORD, a new heaven and earth, judgment, etc. which is all from “scripture”. That would seem to be what those unstable ones were twisting, as well as “the rest of” or the remaining (all of) scripture. In other words, they took not only Paul’s writings but any writing concerning the truth of scripture and turned it to their own advantage.
From my perspective, it seems like there is an over-reaction to what Skip was saying, and in fact, is substantiating what he wrote. We read the verses from the NT that says all scripture is inspired, and assume it includes the NT. What Skip is saying (and he is not alone in this analysis) is that the writers of the NT were NOT talking about their letters (which were not compiled into what we call the NT until approx. 300 years later) as being part of the Yah-breathed SCRIPTURE. They fully understood there was only the Tanakh that fit that bill (to further clarify: to the Sadducees: only the Torah; the Pharisee: it also included the Nevi’im & Ketuvim).
Now, please understand, I am NOT saying that the NT has no importance. I FULLY agree with Laurita (and others) who stated the importance of the NT. But just because I don’t feel that it is Yah-breathed doesn’t mean that we can’t glean important truths by studying it. It doesn’t lessen the importance of chronicling the life and ministry of Yeshua. These are of utmost importance. Yes, Yah obviously coordinated the survival & inclusion of the letters, but there are multiple other letters that were excluded that very well should have been included but they were too “Jewish” (another of Skip’s points). In fact, the Book of James was a hair-breadth away from being excluded.
So in closing, re-read Skip’s last paragraph. Again, I don’t see where he was dinegrating the NT — he was simply putting the writings in their original context.
Let me see if I’m understanding one of your points here. There were letters that were excluded on the basis of them being “too ‘Jewish'” – from what we call the NT, correct? If this is so, then on what basis does Judaism, which accepts only the Tanakh as authoritative, not accept these same books as part of their canon? For example, clearly 1 Enoch, aka the Book of Enoch was held in high esteem by Jews of the 1st century, yet it was never considered on par with the Tanakh. Why? Certainly we can’t say it was because it was viewed as “too Jewish”?
Moreover, as Dan Kraemer astutely notes below, why do Christians accept the Tanakh as authoritative given its ‘Jewish-ness’? Or Is the Intertestamental literature ‘more Jewish’ than the Tanakh?
Would it come as a complete surprise that I wasn’t trying to write a dissertation? I understand what you are saying, and I was just giving a thumbnail sketch to the topic at hand that I feel Skip has best answered in his, All the Pieces (2), posted today (11/15/2016).
Blessings & Shalom!
As we read this, I – raised Roman Catholic – recalled that body of work in the Catholic bible removed by the Protestants, much of it from the “silent” 400 years. And I still remember my surprise, upon buying a [Protestant] bible as a 20-something (when I returned to faith), that those books I knew from my youth were not in the text. Additionally interesting is the memory of sneaking our family [Catholic] bible out of of its place when I was a teen and reading for myself. I was convinced I’d be in trouble if my parents caught me. It was in those times that I came to know the Pseudepigrapha/Apocrypha (Macabees, Esdras, Wisdom(s), Tobit, Judith, etc). It was not read in Catholic services, nor do I remember it taught in 15 years of Catholic education (K-college).
It was my knowledge of those writings that helped me re-embrace Yeshua, question what Christianity offered, and walk down this path of The Way.
And speaking of “walking”, Skip’s mention of being “hamstrung” hit hard. We ARE hamstrung. We are not merely hobbled, because a hobbled creature can still shuffle about, can be released and have full use of their legs. To be hamstrung makes one lame: 1.To cut the hamstring of (an animal or a person) and thereby cripple. 2. To destroy or hinder the efficiency of; frustrate; to make ineffective or powerless.
Sources from Late Antiquity indicate that hamstringing was commonly used to incapacitate combatants and prisoners, not just animals. In Joshua 11:6, YHVH instructs Joshua to “hamstring” the enemy’s horses, if that is a valid translation of תְּעַקֵּר (Skip?)
Thankful to be healed of lameness, thankful Yah has kept me hobbled all these years, so that I would walk at a teachable pace.
Gal 1:11 And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man,
Gal 1:12 for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught it , but through a revelation of Jesus Christ,
Am I misunderstanding Paul or is he saying his evangel came directly from Yeshua? If so, how much more “holy” and equal to the revelation given to Moses can it be? If not, should we dismiss Paul altogether? If so, would it not also be equal to the revelation from Yeshua to John?
Regarding the intertestamental writings Skip writes, “The Church has dismissed this material because it is Jewish.”
I don’t understand, isn’t the entire Old Testament Jewish? Why do they allow that in their Bibles?
“or are we able to argue with Peter that the Law and the Prophets is enough?”
In 1986, my husband Bob Owen, wrote Isidor Zwirn’s story (The Rabbi From Burbank, Tyndall House Publishers) in which the answer to Skip’s above question shines clear. Following are a few lines from the book:
“The year was 1950, the Jewish State had been established and interest in Zionism was flourishing … my family was attending the newly organized Emunah Orthodox Synagogue in Burbank … One day I was asked to become their Rabbi of Zionism … I was vitally interested in the subject and in exposing the children to the prophetic writings. I lost no time plunging into the study …
“The Lord has always been as close to me as breathing, for he is the Breath of Life and has breathed his own life into me. His Presence, all that He is has surrounded me, filled me, guided me sustained me from my earliest recollections. A Torah Jew who lives with integrity believes every word of Torah is true … and that only Torah in its totality could properly instruct us in the words and ways of the Almighty. It is why we are taught each word of each sentence and even each letter of Torah is to be studied. (pgs 32, 34, 35)
“Now as Zionist Rabbi, my responsibility included checking every single prophecy that had to do with a Messiah and a Messianic Age. I would examine each jot and tittle. (pg 44)
“Months later, all that remained was for me to compile my results and I wrote, every single prophecy researched concerning the Messiah is true and has come to pass exactly as predicted by the prophets of Israel … It was as though a great light shone from the pages of Torah into the innermost recesses of my being, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (pgs. 63, 67)
“The word spread like wildfire … Jews rebuffed me … Christians greeted me with ‘I’ve heard you’re a Christian, that’s wonderful, now go convert your own people.’ In vain I told them, ‘No! I’m no more a Christian than Jesus was or Peter or Paul. They were Jews and I’m a Jew’ … stony silence.
And therein lies a peek into some of our difficulty in answering the TW question. When the Rabbi’s story was presented at Tyndall House, several executives found the matter unrelate-able, requiring them coming to California for an interrogating discussion. The Rabbi’s story can still be found under the title of “A Rabbi’s Search For Messiah” circulated by Good News For Israel-gnfi@gnfi.org
Thank you for that information, Patricia. I had never heard of Isidor Zwirn before. But I did a quick search and found an old, grainy video from an interview he gave to a Christian station back in the 70’s. Very interesting I’ll have to look more into this lectures and books.
But, in that interview, I could see he was very well learned. He even challenged anyone, including other Orthodox Rabbi’s to come to his lectures and please disagree with him and prove him wrong. He said he wanted to be challenged.
Here’s the link to the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYime02AUiE It’s kinda amusing to watch the responses from the Christian preachers, they really aren’t getting what he’s saying, lol.
Thank you Mark. it is a blessing to hear his voice. I had not seen that video.
Good day All
This is a very interesting discussion. Some alternative views such as scriptures to include remaining or later writings.
My two sent thoughts. Life is a progressive cycle when we apply the experiential learning cycle. Need, Rule, Knowledge, Applying.
When I view the records including resurrection I find this learning cycle applicable to the T.
Man is in need to understand and appreciate the creator.
The creator has provided the rule or norm for this relationship.
Moses, Judges, Kings, Prophets all reminded us of these rules. But as with any learning mere words cannot bring about change unless they are demonstrated and this is what Yeshua did and the reason why others deemed him a threat. He showed what must be done to manifest the will of God in flesh.
Now he tasked the apostles to further this application principle and this is what I read in the NT.
And this same rule applies for love. I can tell you of all it’s advantages and tell you how it is established and maintained. All this is good, but if nobody demonstrates this towards me I have no desire to foster love.
Love, Seeker. 1 Cor. 13. I consider it the Magnus Opus of synopsis wherein Paul captures all the veracity of the Torah combined with the even more vigorous requirements of the heart service of that Torah as put forth by Yeshua in the Sermon on the Mount, and most certainly an inspired understanding thereof which I find provides the essence of the doctrine of love and profitable for daily reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness for me. No mere person on this planet could have ever come up with that chapter (even though I believe the entire planet has tried to capture the essence of love) but Paul just took it away in one inspired rant. A hearty and resounding Amen!
Laurita Love for me is an attribute from God and I believe this is what Paul would have been explaining. Charity or agape explain catering for others needs above our own life progress. Not at our own downfall. Love as normally understood by humans refers rather to some physical sensation or emotional condition are these Godly attributes or only human sensations that make us natural beings…