Textual Torture
Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Your possession. Psalm 2:8 NASB
Your – Bear with me today. This is a bit academic but incredibly important.
What is the context of this verse? Who is speaking? To whom is the promise addressed? What do the words mean? Ah, before you rush to the Psalms to discover the answers, perhaps you might be interested in what the early Church fathers did with this verse and many more like it.
The Church reads texts such as ‘Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten thee. Ask of me and I will give the nations as thy inheritance’ (Ps. 2:7-8) as a statement addressed by God to Christ promising him the gentile Church as his inheritance (cf. Ter. Adv. Jud. 12). By juxtaposing such texts with others, such as ‘On your account the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles’ (Isa. 52:5), read as referring to the unbelieving Jews (Ter. Adv. Jud. 13), one reads the Psalms and the Prophets as texts for the election of the Gentiles and the reprobation of the Jews. . . . In the period after the establishment of the Church as the religion of the Roman Empire, this argument, that the gentile Church is a messianic fulfillment, takes on a new political tone. The universalism of the nations, gathered in the Church, is equated with the universal sway of the Christian Roman Pax. The ecumenical empire comes to be identified with the millennial reign of the Messiah over the earth.[1]
Do you understand what Reuther discovered in her study of the early Church fathers? She demonstrates conclusively that these men hated the Jews and did everything possible to portray the Jews as rejected by God, reprobate, immoral, rebellious and responsible for the death of “Jesus.” The Church fathers framed the theology that led to the Crusades where Christian believers were encouraged to exterminate the “Christ killers.” The Church fathers provided Luther with all he needed to write the theology of the holocaust. The Church fathers twisted Scripture, fabricated evidence, mounted a campaign of malicious propaganda and participated in ruthless acts toward Jews because their paradigm demanded that the Jews lose. It was the God-deigned destiny of the Church to rule the world (in God’s name, of course). Therefore, the Jews must either become Christians (as Luther expected) or be eliminated. By torturing the text so that everything negative was about the Jews and everything positive was about the Church, the early fathers were able to produce theological justification for anti-Semitism.
Reuther concludes that the early fathers believed “ . . . the Jews, in not receiving Christ, do not and never have received God’s Word, and have never known God through their Scriptures, since these Scriptures are revealed through God’s Word.”[2] In other words, since Jews reject the Trinity, they cannot know God at all.
In summary, Reuther notes, “For Christianity, anti-Judaism was not merely a defense against attack, but an intrinsic need of Christian self-affirmation. Anti-Judaism is a part of Christian exegesis. . . . to affirm the identity of the Church, which could only be done by invalidating the identity of the Jews.”[3]
Maybe you already realized this. Maybe your grip on history is solid enough to recognize that the Church required an anti-Semitic understanding of Scripture. Maybe you knew that these early framers of Christian thought were vicious, cruel, fabricators who incited the populace to pogroms. But if you knew all this, what makes you think that they have any place whatsoever in God’s Kingdom? And if they don’t, then what does that say about the philosophical and theological underpinnings of Christianity? Rosemary Reuther is a Catholic scholar. She recognizes that her own faith is built on violence, lies and spurious exegesis. Christianity as a religion is posturing for political supremacy. It is about ruling, not about righteousness.
Listen, history doesn’t lie. What was said, what was done—can’t be erased simply because we choose not to think about it. Most Christian believers have no idea what their great men of the faith actually taught. Most Christian believers do their very best to honor and serve God as they understand Him. But that is not the same as knowing what the Scriptures say about God—and, frankly, the Scriptures are Jewish. You cannot serve the God of Israel through the mouth of Saint John Chrysostom because he did not serve the God of Israel. He served another God, one that he made up from Roman philosophy and twisted Jewish texts. And he wasn’t the only one.
Topical Index: early Church fathers, your, Gentiles, nations, anti-Semitism, Rosemary Reuther, Psalm 2:7-8
[1] Rosemary Reuther, Faith and Fratricide, pp. 140-141.
[2] Ibid., p. 162.
[3] Ibid., p. 181.
Ah, but even Chrysostom knew that Paul had prophesied apostasy in the form of the antechrist: he writes on 2Thess. 2:8 “when the Roman Empire is taken out of the way then he shall come; and naturally, for as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will readily exalt himself; but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of men and of God.” The early Christians feared this antichrist so much that they prayed earnestly for the pagan Roman empire to last even as it was torturing the life out of them, for they knew that what would follow would be even worse, as it certainly was. Chrysostom knew enough about the coming Roman Papacy that he wanted nothing to do with it.
To be fair, or at least historically accurate (and I am NOT defending the antisemitism in the least) we have to acknowledge that the persecution of Christians by the Jews started with the stoning of Stephen and escalated from there. Yeshua prophesied that the believers would be thrown out of the synagogues, and they were. If we are going to understand the milieu out of which this antisemitism arose we are going to also have to look at the hatred of the Jews toward the early church, for they started the hatred first, didn’t they? It is rather hard to get along with those who already don’t want to have anything to do with you, and are inciting the Romans on you at every opportunity. We have to admit that the Jews were not exactly a picture of helpless, loving victims in this. That is, if we want to examine ALL the reasons why it ended up the way it has. Otherwise, we could be running the very real risk of just continuing the historically ignorant hatred, couldn’t we?
And, even the NT Scriptures paint the Ioudaioi (the “Jews”) generally in mostly in a bad light. I didn’t check all 57 occurrences of this term, but there’s only one in Mark (7:3), and this can be construed as neutral (perhaps), though most, if not all, in John are depicted as against Jesus; in Acts there are at least two which are positive (2:5, 11), while most illustrate opposition to those of The Way (9:23; 13:45; 13:50; 14:2;14:19; 17:5; 17:13; 18:12; 21:11; 21:27, etc.), though one has Paul and Silas being called by this term in a generic way by the slave owners (16:20). Outside the Gospels and Acts, Paul uses the word only a few times, twice in a negative way (1 Cor 1:22 [globally]; Gal. 2:13), and twice neutrally (1 Cor 12:13; Gal. 2:15 [globally]).
you will want to read Daniel Gruber’s material on this issue
I don’t know how Gruber can get around the fact that oi Ioudaioi are painted in a bad light in John and Acts. I understand that Ioudaioi by itself is an adjective, but when used with the article, it is nominalized, becoming a noun. And this usage predominantly is for those in opposition to Jesus (in John’s Gospel) or for those in opposition to those of The Way (in Acts). But, to be fair, as I was in my earlier comment, the term is sometimes used either generically/globally, or neutrally, and/or it refers to the Apostles, though these are a minority of usages.
BTW, I did pick up Nanos’ (Ed.) The Galatians Debate on the cheap. I’ve only skimmed a bit, though, as I’ve been working on other research/writing at the moment.
The persecution of the Christians by the Jews was initially the killing of Jews by Jews. The Jews had no reason to kill Gentile Christians. The Greeks had deified Mary before the end of the first century. She was the Greek golden calf. Having said that, It was prophesied that even though the Greek church would not understand (those who have not seen), they would do the great work of salvation. There is sufficient truth in the literal-historical layer of the Bible for salvation.
The kingdom of heaven is teaching (like leaven), so when the kingdom is given back to the Jews, the teaching will return to the way Jesus taught them to read the OT in the temple when he was 12. The keys to this teaching are the pictures of the cross hidden in the SOD.
Perhaps you will adjust your opening statement after you read historians like John Gager (The Origins of Anti-semitism) and Rosemary Reuther (Faith and Fratricide). The process actually doesn’t begin with Jews killing Jews since there was a great deal of tolerance among the various sects of what we now call “Judaism.” The process begins when Gentiles who were anti-Semitic deliberately removed themselves from the Jewish way of life that was essential to the earliest assemblies and began a polemic against Jews in general (see Reuther for all the citations).
Perhaps. But even before Paul was converted, there was a persecution of Jewish Christians by Jews.
Technically speaking, there were no “Jewish Christians” before the conversion of Paul.
There was a sect of hebraic believers that followed a Rabbi named Yashua that had decidedly different views, but they were Hebrews nonetheless.
In my opinion.
I think this is semantics. Followers of Jesus were being killed by non-believing Jews. The believing Hebrews were certainly still Hebrews, and as Jesus taught, the real children of Abraham. The metaphor of the field is one of the harvest. You will notice that the field is circumcised. The corners were not harvested by the Jews but were harvested by the sojourner and Gentile. But the whole field was harvested. The Jews first, then the Gentiles. The field included Hebrew and Gentiles. There is no difference between the two in the harvest. So the disbelievers were killing the believers, and since there was not a gentile church yet, they both were Jews.
I am aware that some use the terms Hebrew and Jew with more precision than I, but I have yet to learn to make the distinction.
Actually, your vocabulary is a bit off here. Paul was not “converted,” there was nothing for him to convert to. He remained an orthodox follower of YHVH but simply embraced the Jewish Messiah, as he himself testifies. So there were no “Christian” Jews when Paul lived. The invention of “Christian” as a religious term only occurs after the influence of the Greek Church fathers who were explicitly anti-Jewish. Check your history. Until Bar Kochba, all forms of Jewish living were tolerated by the vast majority of the community. I cover all this in my lectures on the formation of the Christian Church
Exactly. I mean to get those lectures as well.
Again, I think this is semantics. Paul certainly had a conversion experience. I think we are wrestling over terms which are probably more important to your tradition than mine (though I can hardly be called a traditional Christian) and I apologize for the inconvenience. We are in agreement in concept.
Except the conversation was about ‘Jewish’ v “hebrew’. 😉
I believe in following the Scriptural evidence. I suppose we could call Stephen, the first known martyr at the hands of Jews, a “Jewish follower of Yeshua as Messiah.” The term “Christian” (Christianos) is first applied in Acts 11:26, in which it is stated that the disciples of Paul and Barnabas were first called by this moniker in Antioch, these disciples identified as some of those scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen’s martyrdom, i.e., Jews (Acts 11:19-26). It’s not clear just who applied the name, though. However, could “Jewish followers of Yeshua as Messiah” be legitimately called Christians after that? Well, in Acts 26:28 the term is used by Agrippa in his conversation with Paul, the implication here that Paul was known as a “Christian” by Agrippa. More telling, though, is Peter’s use of the term in 1 Peter 4:16.
Looking outside Scripture, the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63) identified the disciples, those who were around at the time Pilate sentenced Jesus to death, at the insistence of oi Ioudaioi, using the term:
Josephus is being a bit anachronistic here, but the point here is that a 1st century Jewish historian knew Messiah-followers by the term “Christian.”
I’ll have something more to say about oi Ioudaoi after I finish assessing all the data.
You’re not going to get an argument from me. I have had to change what people are called from negro, to black, to Black-American, African-American, back to black… and they are the same people I went to school with. As the agenda changed, so did the names.
In some conversations is is helpful to discern those of the northern tribes from those of the southern. Judaism itself does not define itself as a race or religion, and coming out of Egypt there were mixed races.
Some Jews don’t consider other Jews to be Jewish today. I have Pa Dutch blood which is Jewish, which permits me to intermarry with Orthodox Jews. G’pa spoke Yiddish. But they have been Christian since at least 1200 AD. So conversational context matters, and until it does, I don’t make a fuss over it or it becomes a distraction to me from the original conversation. I can only do one thing at a time. Just me. 😉
Craig does not get distracted when he is on the hunt.
He is singularly focused and even when he dallies at any given topic, his brain is setting up his next volley on the one he is currently sorting out.
Bob,
PC-ness — ugh. If you grew up in that area, then, we are from, at least roughly, the same area. If so, were you told to “red” (read?, as in ‘ready’?) up your room when you were a youngster?
Since you opened up the door for this, I’ll state something I was going to mention before: It’s possible I have Jewish blood, though I’ve never researched it. I probably never will look into it, as, the way I see it, we all bleed the same color. However, if there’s such a thing as a “Jewish nose”, well, I got that!
Twenty years ago I was a sales rep for a local firm, and members of the local Jewish Community Center came in, shopping. When I gave them my card (my last name is not overtly Jewish, but it could be), one of them asked, “Are you Jewish”. I told him no, as I didn’t think I was. I found out later they made their purchase from one of our distributors, the owner of which was a Jewish man. C’est la vie…
I was raised in the deep South… So. Calif. but originally from Pa. 😉
Except the conversation was ‘Jewish v ‘<Hebrew 😉
Repeat post because i was addressing Craig, and while i have come along way w/my ability with fonts, i still lack in how to get my message where it belongs.
Hebrew
Lol.. if you say so. I obviously got lost. Maybe I shouldn’t respond to things that are indented 3 times or more lol
btw,
I was sticking with the Biblical evidence, which uses cognates of <Ioudas: Judah, Judas, Jews.
and my tag wasn’t completed: Ioudas
HE’S FALLABLE!!!
We do not agree. 😉
Regardless of how one views “Hebrew” vs. “Jewish”, the evidence indicates that the term Christianos, “Christians,” was used of Messiah-followers both in Scripture itself and in extrabiblical Jewish literature of the 1st century. That was my main point.
>SIGH of relief< well, then, it seems we DO agree.
Thank you Skip for the reminder, that the true Jew is not the one circumcised in the flesh but from ear to heart.
As for today we all like to hear about this great messiah and await his return when the teachings by the Messiah self teaches something else….
It is not those that call on his name, do things in his name etc. that are saved but those that do what he has taught. How confusing this kind of teaching may be.
The majority believers today seem to be waiting for the second coming or return of Christ yet Yeshua said when we gather in his name there he will be, when we ask to fulfill his teachings he will provide. Even Paul reiterated this and we easily viewed it as something to happen later in human era when in fact the calling is today, now that Christ needs to be manifested or returned into our ways of living… Christ the power and wisdom of God, that Shema of the Ten
Commandments when that is done others will bow down and say surely God is with that or that person… Not for others to believe but for themselves to be as an example of redemption from the trends and way of man… Satan get the behind me as you think and promote the will of man not of God = LIFE ETERNAL.
And we will become disciples when we remind and teach others of this easy and merciful restoration of God. Then we too will experience Isaiah 45 as a reality of God Fulfilling this promise to all that believe and do…
Amain and Amain! Thank you for boldly sharing these truths Skip!
Constantine moved the seat of Christianity to Constantinople during his reign where it remained unconquered for another 1000 years. The church at Rome was sacked and a new political pope installed by the Franks about 450 to allow them to control the people. When Constantinople fell to the Turks in the 1450 time frame, the only Christianity that remained was the Russian orthodox church where it hangs on by a mere thread today. It seems that we may have been following a contrived political system since the fall of Rome, and our true Christian heritage may be preserved in Russia.
Good day John,
Interesting reference to the Christian heritage still in Russia… There is a movement that claims that the age of the anti-christ through an individual referred to as Nicholaas/Nick etc. will be risen from the uniting of all governments linked to the Russian government.
Saying that the Christian heritage is still being preserved there raises the question will this heritage be the principle to overpower the anti-christ or will it be the global united “religious” groups through the growing Hebraic movement?
Maybe it is not given for us to answer this question…
Seeker, you might want to check out a book written by a Jew named Steve Wohlberg called End Time Delusions. I hear you can find it in most Christian bookstores.
Dear Laurita
Steve Wohlberg? I have his book, inspite of what he says he is a supersessionist, see his debate with Micheal Brown on the subject.
Dear Laurita;
True Steve Wohlberg is ethnically Jewish he is most certainly not Jewish in faith. He is a Seventh day Adventist pastor and as such is a supersessionist (see his debate with Dr.Michael Brown) as most S.D.A’s are. I speak with some authority as i was raised a 5th generation S.D.A. and remained such until age 50.
If you could point out where he is missing essentials from Scripture I would appreciate it. Further, if you could point out where his synopsis on history; particularly the history of the present day popular stances on the issues he tackles, namely, the rapture, the antichrist, Israel and the end of the world, I would also appreciate that, too.
I thought Laurita had made it quite clear that she, also, is a staunch SDA.
It stands to reason that she would recommend a person she admires greatly.
Dear Laurita;
I didn’t know you are an SDA, I would be happy to politely discuss our differing views. will you be at the Spokane meeting with Skip?
I can be contacted at 5stringtorah@gmail.com, Blessings.
Dear laurita;
First of all sorry about the double response I’m somewhat digitally challenged.
I agree with Steve Wohlberg on a number of his points. My main problem with his books( and with SDA doctrine ) is that Israel is seen as irrelevant to our day,You know “1948 is just a smoke screen”. SDA eschatology is built on replacement theology and cannot stand without it.
Thank you, Ron. That helps. I don’t agree with him on all his points either, as I rarely do with anyone, and save my admiration for the One Who is “altogether lovely”. I don’t know much about him, as this was the first thing I had read. You and btw both have given me more info for sure. I would hesitate to lump everything not pro- modern state Israel as replacement theology, though. SDA has embraced and worked closely with Jews long before anyone else was doing it. They both stood shoulder to shoulder and fought the Sunday Blue Law attempts a century ago and formed the backbone of the current religious liberty movement in this country, and SDA also recognizes that none of us are going to get to the finish line without finding the long lost bridge with Judaism, although perhaps not with the State of Israel.
“…..none of us are going to get to the finish line without finding the long lost bridge with Judaism”? What does the “finish line” and “long lost bridge with Judaism” mean? If possible, a brief explanation may suffice.
Finish line = Second Coming.
Long lost bridge with Judaism; we have no Biblical quarrel with the roots we sprang out of and are the branches of, but BOTH sides, root and branch, need to quit hacking each other off. That Coming cannot occur until we make up and show the world what we were meant to show, but neither side can do it without the other, or else they already would have This is a three-legged race with the Messiah as the middle man bridging both. Isn’t it obvious that He is waiting on us, and not us on Him?
Actually, I think it is not one or the other. I think we are” waiting on” each other, just like those who were delivered from Egypt and those who waited on Messiah’s first coming, etc. Can we point to what it was that they, in those times, had to do for Him to do what He did? And whatever it is that we need to do, do we not have to wait on Him to give us the help that we need to know what it is and how to do it? It also seems to me that only He knows all of what is required for the “fullness of time” for any of these events to occur. Nevertheless, in the meantime, in the words of Rodney King, “People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?”
Probably not. Everyone loves a good bon fire. 😉 Someday, in the proper thread, I will display my eschatological heresy, which is produced by placing doctrine of the Bible before ontology. I actually change what I believe to be true about reality, rather than force doctrine into what I believe to be true about Physics, etc.
Not sure which question you’re saying “Probably not” to, but in reply to part of your comment, I can say, I think Skip is one who definitely enjoys a good bon fire. I personally think he’s a bit of an arsonist. He seems to enjoy setting fires to “destroy” things and then sits on the sidelines to enjoy watching them burn. And he’s not alone. He started this one and others are adding to it. ; ) May He who is a consuming fire burn everything that can be burned.
THANK YOU LAURITA I WILL.
But I need to say I am very skeptic of end time discussions as the scripture reveals; different dispensations; different events for different groups of people; including a dispensation following Pauline guidelines above Moses laws…
Each with a purpose for a specific period and not to be united until the Pauline ministry has been fulfilled, that is all Gentiles (Like myself) being made aware of God and His purpose for this creation… And how we need to change to following the ten commandments by revealing Godly love 80% of the laws introduced by Moses.
Does anyone really know what God’s purpose is? The scriptures reveal His permanent residence under the children of Israel – sounds as if current heaven is not suitable anymore if we have to literally interpret this message which does not make sense… I sometimes wonder if it is really about saving souls but rather about securing a place to dwell.
Forgive me here but I still find it easier to adapt a Pauline dispensation of saving souls for eternal life than restoring a Hebraic way of living as a permanent way for God to dwell among humans… Both rely heavily on an amount of exegeses… AND Yes both make a lot of sense as 7 days IS SAID TO equal 7 000 human years and we are touching on this since the creation of the GARDEN…
Sadly the churches of today carry this anti semitic posture, even if not outright but behind the things said and done. Replacement theology is alive and responsible for considerable damage to the relationship with their Jewish brethren. Sure they may invite Jews and welcome them but with hopes of converting them to their line of thinking. Still many churches are and have changed due to good men who have learned the truth and teach the truth and for this we thank the LORD for opening their hearts and minds to what the early believers in Yeshua did in action by accepting Jew and gentile in worship and fellowship. We pray today for the leaders of the various churches today that they may come to the knowledge and acceptance of the Jewishness of their Messiah and the Word of God.
Skip, I’m sorry. I am trying to “bear” with you, but you say, “….the Scriptures are Jewish”. Aren’t the Scriptures Hebrew? All of the Scriptures are not Jewish because not all the writers were Jews? I think I understand why you are using that name/term in the context of this blog, but it does become confusing for me. I know that the term, “Jewish” can have a number of different meanings. But doesn’t being Jewish really, more accurately, mean being from the tribe of Judah, and isn’t the issue you are putting forth here more (or less) than being anti-Semitic (anti-Shemites) or anti-Jewish? Or is it more (or less) about being anti-Judaism (and that is not only having to do with Jews either)? A semite, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs. I’m not sure what the solution is, if any, but I hope, somehow, there is a way to get the terminology cleared up when talking about these things so that the confusion doesn’t continue to promote the problems being addressed here. Or, somewhat comically I ask, do I just need to get more “educated” and “get with the program” so I will be more “less-confused” (I just made up that term. Why not? : )? Thanks.
Bingo.
Let the ‘anti-semitism’ commentary begin.
“Jewish”, as defined today is really more about a rabbinical based approach to what originally was a Hebraic response to YHVH.
The vitriolic response i have gotten whenever i have attempted to point that out is head spinning.
And
“Christian” as defined today is really more about a Greek based philosophical approach to the same.
Even the chief Rabbi of “the state if Israel” are unable or unwilling to identify who is a real Jew.
That is precisely why accurate terminology will be useful in searching for the truth.
Genetically and historically, the majority of the current “Palestinians” are Yahudim (of the tribe of Judah) and most of the the Jewish settlers are not.
Friday was Holocaust remembrance day. I remembered that after WWII their where approximately 14,000. Jewish children left living on Continental Europe. The paridigmes discussed herein have a very real history, with documented results.
Perhaps the Jews started it Craig but how do you think it will end? If Isreal is the chosen vehicle of YAHWEH to display the veracity of his word the only way Hah Satan can discredit that word is to bury Isreal. He has been working on that since Abrahams day and those of us who are of Abrahams seed and here the voice of Messiah know that pressure keenly. This is not a theological or acedemic conversation it is a very real war, kingdoms in conflict. The only real question is which side are you on?
https://askdrbrown.org/library/who-jew
Thank you for the good discussion. I haven’t heard a word about Hellenism. Doesn’t fit in as a vehicle promote actually whatever they wanted?
Again at the title of the post gives yet another insight, if scripture shows us the life of Yeshua isn’t his life being tortured. No wonder many Jews do not accept him as Messiah it makes me dishoveled . I would like to have others use the shovel and dig up the truth. There’s something to be said about Miss representation.
I read the article but nowhere in it did i see that question answered by either the Tanakh or the Brit Chadashah, which, incidentally agree on this question. Shouldn’t the only definition that matters be the one that YHVH establishes?
Laurita, I have to agree with you that both “sides” of this issue are at fault, but I can only come to the conclusion that the RCC high-jacked it for reasons more to do with political power than interpretation and application of the message of Yeshua and it knew exactly what it was doing and why. When politics enters the conversation, truth and vision go out the window and the plebians get side-swiped.
Nothing has changed today and the question does not get answered by a politician or a judge. It never does. ‘Twas ever thus. The Beatitudes says it all for me and there will be a price to be paid by those not mentioned. I need to remember this.
p.s. Just got back couple of hours ago.
Hello Skip and others,
A few thoughts traverse my mind as this reflection is being considered:
(1) History doesn’t lie, you’re right. (2) I would say though, even though main line churches have published apologies and statements for their past grievous atrocities carried out against the Jewish people, what gets espoused from pulpits is still Greecian-centered theology. (3) I now look to writers such as you and Julia Blum for insights into the past. When the plan of YHVH is widowed down to simply love and forgive, there is cause for concern.
A lot gets left out. (4) Perhaps crusades and murderous acts are not being perpetrated, but a lot of “Christians” are unknowingly being misinformed, or not informed. What is worse?
David Russell
Selah ! Learning, Shalom Skip.
Unless I am terribly misinformed (which is possible), if we’re keeping score (let’s hope not), I think there have been far more Jews murdered by Christians than the opposite in the last 2000 years regardless of who started it. I think if I remember right, Gruber shows in his work that that Skip referenced, the term “Ioudaioi” refers to a particular group instead of all Jews. I’m sure Skip or someone else will correct me if I’m wrong on either or both points.
Shalom Mel,
Are you not forgetting about the contribution of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin?
Not really. They certainly killed plenty of people but that was over ideological or political agendas and the victims were certainly not all Christians. I was referring to religious wars since the time of Yeshua where adherents of one faith murdered the other.
Formal religion pushes nothing but ideological and political agendas. That is for example how the Church of England started, to name but one.
Remember that “religious extremist wars” invariably kills more of “their own” than of the so called opposition.
Yashua never adhered to a faith or a religion and neither did his true followers. For them there was only One to trust in and they did it not out of blind Greek-based “faith” but because they know Him (and His family) through experience.
To set themselves apart, they would refer (as Paul did) to themselves as of the sect of the Nazarenes.
Let’s be fair. All my Muslim friends tell me that Muslims have never killed anyone. Anyone doing such things is not Muslim. 😉 So Christians never killed anyone either. And by this reasoning, no one has killed anyone. 😉
Speaking of OP.. the word ‘your’ in Hebrew is the suffix of a final kaf. The kaf is the “Son of God” is contrast to the nun which is the meshiach or son of man. The final form highlights the death of the Son of God in accordance to the law of God. So in the SOD, it always refers to the Son of God as the primary metaphor. In the Pashat it can refer to anyone as a secondary metaphor, which is determined by context.
Waterloo refers to the arrogance of Napoleon in the primary sense. But anyone can have their own Waterloo in the secondary usage.
By the nature of prophecy, the literal events and prophecies all point to the cross. Occasionally they look like they point to each other because they all look like the cross. Take Cyrus, he is a shadow of Christ. So when a prophecy is made about Cyrus, it is also a prophecy about Christ. Which is the more important? Jesus said that all the scriptures spoke of him, so when they spoke of Cyrus, they spoke of him. Paul says when he speaks of marriage, he does not speak of man and his wife but of Christ and the church. They all speak of Christ.
Bob! I have had my secondary Waterloo, too!
Fantastic discussion, I have learned something from everybody today. There is another way to put your “primary” and “secondary” senses, and those are the terms “type” and “antitype”. You could say that Cyrus is a type of Christ, as the Tabernacle in the wilderness was a type of Him, too, but antitype , or, the fulfillment of type will always trump type as being much more than its type. Another way to say what you said, I think, is that Christ is the antitype of the entire Tanakh, which presents a type of Him. I have seen it explained that this has to do with picturing the inconceivable so that when it happens it will at least be recognized. That is how paradigms work: you have to have at least something comparable already present in your understanding and experience to be able to recognize and accept something that you have never seen before and paradigm is what we all have to work from.
For example (and I repeat this illustration because it is like an archtypal picture, to me, anyway, of the power of the paradigm) the first time the native Americans saw Christopher Columbus and his merry men they wondered where they came from. Even though the ships were sitting out at anchor, the natives could not SEE them because they looked nothing like what they had ever seen before. I think we were given the history of the Hebrews as one giant picture of Messiah so we could ‘see’ the ship from heaven when it did show up on our planet. This is why a lot of what they were commanded to do looks so nonsensical to us IF we do not know how to recognize Christ in the actions of their everyday lives. Hopefully we, too, have learned that obedience is also about others being able to see Christ in the type of us.
Bold is for those passages that seem to hold a key to understanding (Oi) Ioudaoi. In passages without the article, “The” is omitted. At first glance, it seems the term is not specific to any one locale or group. In John it seems to apply to religious leaders, but that’s only a preliminary analysis. This is broken up into two due to length.
Mark 7:3: The Pharisees and all the Ioudaoi (‘all’ from Jerusalem? – see 7:1)
John 1:19 The Ioudaoi from Jerusalem
John 2:18 The Ioudaoi
John 2:20 The Ioudaoi
John 5:10 The Ioudaoi (setting is in Jerusalem)
John 5:16 The Ioudaoi (no change in setting from above)
John 5:18 The Ioudaoi
John 6:41 The Ioudaoi (setting is other side of lake from Capernaum – west side?)
John 6:52 The Ioudaoi
John 7:1 The Ioudaoi (Jesus went “around Galilee” to “stay away” from them)
John 7:11 The Ioudaoi (at Feast of Tabernacles)
John 7:15 The Ioudaoi (at Feast of Tabernacles)
John 7:35 The Ioudaoi (in Jerusalem)
John 8:22 The Ioudaoi (in Jerusalem?)
John 8:48 The Ioudaoi (no change from above)
John 8:52 The Ioudaoi (same as above)
John 8:57 The Ioudaoi (same)
John 9:18 The Ioudaoi (only the Pharisees?)
John 9:22 The Ioudaoi (they decided that anyone acknowledging Jesus as Christ to be put out of synagogue)
John 10:24 The Ioudaoi (at Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem)
John 10:31 The Ioudaoi (same)
John 10:33 The Ioudaoi (same)
John 11:8 The Ioudaoi (references same as above)
John 11:31 The Ioudaoi (those with Mary, brother of Lazarus, at her house)
John 11:36 The Ioudaoi (same as above)
John 18:20 The Ioudaoi (Jesus: “I always taught in synagogues or the temple, where all _____________ come together.”)
John 18:30 The Ioudaoi (“We have no right to execute anyone,” _____________ objected.)
John 19:7 The Ioudaoi (____________ insisted, “We have a law and according to that law he must die because he claimed to be the Son of God.”)
John 19:12 The Ioudaoi (_____________ kept shouting, “…Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”)
John 19:31 The Ioudaoi (Because ______________ did not want the bodies on the cross during the Sabbath.)
Continued…
…continuation:
Acts 2:5 Ioudaoi (staying/dwelling in Jerusalem were God-fearing ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬___________ from every nation under heaven.)
Acts 2:11 Ioudaoi (visitors from Rome, both ___________ and proselytes (converts to Judaism?), Cretans and Arabians…)
Acts 2:14 Ioudaoi (Peter: “Men, ______________, and those staying/dwelling in Jerusalem…”) See 2:5.
Acts 9:23 The Ioudaoi conspired to kill Saul.
Acts 13:45 The Ioudaoi filled with jealousy over Saul.
Acts 13:50 The Ioudaoi expelled Saul and Barnabas from the region.
Acts 14:2 The Ioudaoi at Iconium who refused to believe Paul and Barnabus.
Acts 14:19 Ioudaoi from Antioch and Iconium had Paul stoned and left for dead
Acts 16:20 Ioudaoi The term is used of Paul and Silas by the owners of the slave girl.
Acts 17:5 The Ioudaoi At a Jewish synagogue at Thessalonica ____________ were jealous.
Acts 17:13 The Ioudaoi When Paul and Silas were at Berea, ____________ from Thessalonica came to stir up the crowds.
Acts 18:12 TheIoudaoi At Corinth: While Gallio was proconsul of Acaia _______________ attacked Paul and brought him to court.
Acts 18:14 The Ioudaoi Gallio addressed _______________.
Acts 21:11 The Ioudaoi _______________ of Jerusalem.
Acts 21:27 The Ioudaoi _______________ of Asia.
Acts 23:12 The Ioudaoi _____________ formed a conspiracy against Paul.
Acts 23:20 The Ioudaoi same referent as above.
Acts 24:9 The Ioudaoi Before Felix, ______________ joined in accusations against Paul.
Acts 24:19 The Ioudaoi ____________ of Asia.
Acts 25:7 The Ioudaoi ____________ staying/dwelling in Jerusalem brought serious charges against Paul.
Acts 26:4 [The] Ioudaoi Paul: _____________ knew me as a child. (“the” in brackets because of a textual variant – it may or may not be original.)
Acts 26:21 Ioudaoi Paul: _____________ seized me in the temple courts
1 Cor 1:22 Ioudaoi ___________ demand miraculous signs, Greeks, wisdom
1 Cor 12:13 Ioudaoi whether __________ or Greek
Gal. 2:13 The Ioudaoi Other ____________
Gal 2:15 Ioudaoi Paul to Peter: “We are __________ by nature, and not ‘Gentile sinners.’”
I see quite a disparity in its usage, though in most cases the context speaks negatively. I thought I read somewhere that the term only applied to “Judeans”, but that’s obviously not the case, as the term is used of groups from various locales. It appears to be a fairly large geographic distribution.
I missed one (and undoubtedly more) important usage–John 4:22. Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, “Salvation comes from the Ioudaoi.” But, this does not diminish my main point, which is that the term is used in a variety of contexts, most speaking negatively. There’s no doubt that when used negatively it refers to a particular group. But, I don’t think the group itself is specifically identified, i.e., we don’t know the specific members making up this particular group.
I’m sure people thought i was joking when i said you were singularly focused.
Not.