Required Ruether (Not Religiously Correct)
I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. Matthew 16:18 NASB
Church – There are only two places in the gospels where the word ekklesia is used. This is one of them. But today we won’t look at the Catholic versus Protestant arguments. We won’t try to decide if Yeshua is talking about Peter himself or Peter’s declaration at Caesarea Philippi. For that you can watch the video shot on location in the Lessons from Israel series. Today we will look at the result of deciding that Yeshua is building the Church. We will briefly look at Christianity’s early interpretation of ekkelsia as “church” and the imperial power employed to back up this claim. And for this bit of investigation, Rosemary Ruether is required reading.
Written more than twenty years ago, Ruether shocked the Christian world by articulating the early Church fathers’ rabid anti-Semitism. Furthermore, she provides documented evidence that once the Church enlisted the powers of the Empire, Christianity systematically and deliberately reworked the Bible to support its efforts to marginalize, excoriate and ultimately eliminate the Jews. Page after page of citations and Roman legislation provides a scorching critique of the theological hatred vomiting from Church texts, sermons and canonical law. Noting Justinian’s efforts that parallel similar undertakings in the Latin part of the Empire, Ruether concludes:
Justinian added other specifically religious laws, such as that which ordered that the Jewish Passover is never to fall ahead of the Christian Easter, and a remarkable demand that the scrolls of the Law be read in the vernacular, rather than Hebrew, and without rabbinic commentary, in the synagogue service. This latter law was a direct effort to make the synagogue service itself open to Christian proselytizing by eliminating the rabbinic interpretation of the Scriptures and hence, presumably, making the reading of the Old Testament open to Christian exegesis. Since Christianity was convinced that its own Christological exegesis of the Jewish Bible was self-evident, it was clear to Justinian that once the “blindness” of the rabbinic commentary was removed, the Jews would be able to hear directly the Christian meaning of their own Scriptures.[1]
As Ruether remarks, Justinian’s edicts converted the “Christian theological view into public social policy.”
We do not need to reiterate the social and political outcomes. Economic depression, ghetto development, legal denials, political repression and ethnic disdain eventually led to the theological roots of the Holocaust. These atrocities are well recognized, at least by scholars. But let’s be clear about this: the Church is responsible! The Church deliberately sacrificed the Jews in order to promote its own human agenda. This was not God’s plan, as even a cursory reading of the Bible suggests. This was empire-building on behalf of men whose objective was to raise themselves through religious manipulation and personal vendetta. And these men are the saints of the faith.
How can you enter even once more a sanctuary knowing that it is built on lies, cruelty and political avarice? How can you continue to read the “great works of the fathers of the faith” and not be struck with spiritual diarrhea? Where is your historical conscience? Are you so callous that you can continue to espouse doctrines and theological interpretation that arose directly from genocidal desires?
And what kind of God do you think endorsed all this?
“Falsehood is a refuge, an asylum for the cruel, the violent, for consummate criminals. What begins in a lie ends in blasphemy.”[2]
Topical Index: Rosemary Ruether, anti-Judaism, Church, Matthew 16:18
[1] Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, p. 196.
[2] Abraham Heschel, A Passion for Truth, p. 158.
I’m curious what church you belong to if it’s all based on anti-semitism anyway.
Are you asking me, Skip, what church I belong to? If you are asking me, Skip, the answer is none. I left the last church I was attending some years ago when the elders decided I needed their permission before I could volunteer to assist the chaplain at the city jail. I pointed out that Luke 4 requires us to do things like this, but they told me I was not allowed to do so without their consent. That was the end of that power game.
Been there Skip the institutional church can be amazing. I was asked to leave because I had trubble getting off my face when the Spirit of Yahweh showed up. I entered a process of “loving correction” , that in all honesty did push some buttons that I outside of love and grace reacted too. But at it’s foundation when I humbled myself before the spirit and power of God I did it on my face and that was “drawing attention to myself” and I needed to leave. Okidokie love you brothers see you at the White Throne…
In my 17 years of belief, I’ve never formally been a ‘member’ of a “church”. I figure that I’m already a member of the universal church through the Spirit. But, I take issue with the fact that in most congregations one must be a ‘member’ to have any sort of leadership.
Ten years ago, a local ‘Christian’, an elder at one “church”, was promoting Todd Bentley at the height of his “revival” (for those who don’t know, just look up “Lakeland Revival”) I cautioned him about this guy, having already done some research on Bentley (this was over an email thread that was sent to me extolling the “virtues” of this Bentley character as a “healer”), with him subsequently accusing me of causing division (specifically quoting Prov. 6:19). Later, I set up a meeting with the pastor of that “church”, and I was told that ‘everyone has their weaknesses’ or something to that effect, with the pastor pointing out this guy’s pride. My jaw dropped, and I responded with “but what about this guy’s promotion of a spiritually dangerous man?!” My meeting wasn’t about being disrespected (though the guy was condescending); it was about the danger this ‘elder’ presented in his promotion of questionable individuals.
While the institutional “church” may be a farce, I do believe the body of Christ is alive and well.
Hi Skip, her name is Ruether.
Shalom!
Oops. Sorry.
It is for sure that the day we quit putting vertical obedience to the commandments of God first we have no more defense against forced obedience to the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9). Both the force and the forced quickly follow on the heels of apostasy. We can expect to see it again. These are not my original thoughts, I am just agreeing with the summation of many who have come before me and have lived what Yeshua prophesied. He saw this one coming.
What we may not realize is that Israel apostasized on this level before they went into captivity, too. Surely our apostasy will garner the same result. They came for the Jews yesterday (and for you, Martin Niemoller), but now is the time for us to speak for both, for it is certain that they will be coming for us today. What concerns the Jews affects the rest of us, too because they are just usually first. We should not expect anything different.
Your remarks echo the story of the book of Judges. I will be speaking about this in Virginia Beach this month.
It is easy to leave the Greek church or her daughters. It is much more difficult to leave behind her philosophy and hermeneutic. An example:
Is God omniscient? The Greek defines what God is and then imposes it upon the scripture. But my salvation is dependent upon God forgetting my sins.
The Greek thinks he can explain things better than God, saying that God used terms that man could understand better. But now that we have time (and the Greek priesthood) they can explain how God could still remember but say he forgets.
They insists on maintaining the Greek philosophical God, rather than simply believe that God’s sovereignty trumps Greek philosophy. If God wants to forget, he can forget. He is God.
What, Bob? Did you just get God out of His box? Have you read Skip’s book God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience?
I haven’t. But since time is an illusion of the fall, there is nothing of the future to know. God only needs to know his own purposes and he is able to accomplish them in the now.
I don’t hire a babysitter because she knows everything my kids will do, but because she is able to handle whatever my kids will do. My God is bigger then the babysitter.
That is a great analogy, Bob!
Good plug though. I will have to pick one up.
I think you have mistaken belief for logic. If an omniscient being knows he can forget, is he able to forget and not remember that he forgot?
I did an experiment once w/a friend. I wanted to know if YHVH would erase something from my memory if i gave him permission to do so.
I wrote down something specific, gave it to a friend in an envelope and then we prayed that YHVH would erase the memory and anything connected to it, but would allow me to retain the knowledge of what i was doing.
We agreed that they would keep the envelope and we would touch base about it in the future.
About a month later we had coffee, they opened the envelope and asked me a series of questions. I had absolutely no recollection. They showed me the note i had written, and we had a good laugh, i gave her back the note.
Today, I have no idea what the laugh or the note was about, but i do recall the coffee and the conversation around it.
I told this to my (now ex)husband in conversation when we first met, imagine my shock when he told, mid-rage rant, that it was my responsibility to forgive him and ask YHVH to erase his actions from my memory.
To add to that, my leadership in his immediate circle, to include those that he met through me, agreed w/him! As a woman, i was to be a sponge and accept all he had to throw at me, even (and especially) IF he was wrong (which he was, consistently, actually).
It’s not that i have learned to have no regard for the ‘building’ called the church, but i have, unfortunately, come to regard those that frequent those buildings with the same hesitation.
That reminds me of a country song: “I Forgot to Remember to Forget”.
Fully knowing that this may ruffle feathers in the act of chiming in – I willingly take a step into the fire…
I understand your logic with this Skip, I just really disagree. I have read the, “The Jews and their lies” also have read my fair share of Holocaust books. I think that to lump the Holocaust being motivated by Christianity is a bold step and dangerously not the full picture. My family also escaped Holodomor to come to America.
Just a tad bit of history to it. A huge motivation for the Holocaust was Holodomor, that was an ethnic cleansing led by Bolshevik Jews – an ethnic cleansing that no one really talks about. At the height of it 23,000 men, women and children were dying of starvation a day. An ethnic cleansing that they burred people in the ground alive and, “It looked like the hills where moving alive”. One where they had to design laws because people were so hungry they were turning into cannibals. . No one really knows how many died and officials called it impossible to know. It ranges from 1.8 million – 15 million; most can agree it was 7 million to 10 million. This was from 1932-1934. Yes, more people died in the genocide led by Jews that covered about a year and half the holocaust. And yes it was mostly orthodox Christians that were the victims. Why no one talks about it? I’m not really sure, I guess people don’t know world history that well because it’s not taught in school. But to even say, “led by Jews” isn’t accurate. Led by crazy’s. Just like saying Hitler was a Christian or his inspirational quotes were Christian. No, he was a lucifarian at best.
I always find that when you put emotions to how God would think, it tends to align perfectly with our own. I understand your heart with this post but I just disagree with such broad strokes. And if you carry your logic then you would want to stop listening to Rabbi’s and going into synagogues because they have blemishes as well and have been twisted in ways by people as well. I just find it to be a false option that you are proposing and one that is very selective in it’s approach and criteria. And we could back and forth about who led what genocides. At the end, power and control is the religion ie idolatry.
Will the real Jew/Christian please stand up?
That would be difficult as I believe the two are incommensurable and the combination is an oxymoron
Skip I know your tongue had to be in your cheek somewhere in the above response. I put the two as the same in a slash as (in the specifics that Derek was referring to) there were those CLAIMING to be either but acting the same.
Plus, I don’t see how the two are incommensurable in God’s sight as branches that are grafted in become part of the original tree. I know Judeo-Christian as a term has been much abused but the concept, I believe, is Biblically sound.
It’s the term “Christian,” fully loaded with the history, not just the individual’s belief in the contemporary world, that makes me shudder. And it isn’t biblical. The term in Acts is a reference to the way Gentiles described the “Messiah-followers” in Antioch. It is not the way they described themselves. To suggest the “Christian” and “Jewish follower of the Jewish Messiah” are essentially the same is to ignore 2000 years of history and pretend that all that matters is what I think today. As far as I can tell, Judeo-Christian does not describe anything in the Bible. It is a Western, political, religious term never used on the lips of anyone in Scripture.
We need a new term, then. Are you putting up the term “Jewish follower of the Jewish Messiah” for a vote? I stand ready to vote. I hate the history, too.
Hebrew follower of Torah/Messiah.
Israelite, is my recommendation as we are from the patriarchs of Jacob/Israel not of one tribe but of all…
I’ve landed on describing myself as a gentle who has chosen to join himself to the Lord.
A Messianic Gentile!
The term in Acts is a reference to the way Gentiles described the “Messiah-followers” in Antioch. I’m not so sure we can draw that conclusion definitively. You may be correct, but the text is not explicit. Either way, one must wonder why Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisese, e.g., didn’t just transliterated the Hebrew or Aramaic word for Messiah, as John did in his Gospel (Messias – in 1:41 and 4:25), coupled with the Greek Christos. Paul consistently identified himself as a Christ-follower, rather than a Messiah-follower.
The real Jew or Christian is found on there faces(for an alternative perspective)…And by the way, the devil only shoots waist high, those on their faces don’t get hit…Standing up could be dangerous.
“Robert Conquest, the author of the Harvest of Sorrow, has stated that the famine of 1932–33 was a deliberate act of mass murder, if not genocide committed as part of Joseph Stalin’s collectivisation program in the Soviet Union. ” /wiki/Holodomor
What’s the Jewish connection?
I love you bring up very good points. In speaking about the Holocaust Israel just acknowledged that day interestingly that the day after is their independence day!!! If the world could only recognize that God is in control!!! I’ve heard some say that at Mount Sinai when God was speaking to the people that were the mixed multitude listening to God’s commands, that they were the church I don’t know how to explain this could some one help me ?
I have also noticed that many of the Hebrew roots groups are in contention for their own Empires. Soon and very soon the king will come and make sense of it all. Until then let us contend for the truth and do what is right to walk the tightrope with love in the pursuit of the goal.
Hitler was said to have the rabidly anti-Jewish (and anti-Christian) H.P. Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine on his nightstand for ‘inspiration’. I have this work, her Isis Unveiled, as well as the similarly-themed works by Blavatsky student Alice Bailey, and, having read most of this material, I can personally attest that all these works are as anti-Christian as they are anti-Jewish. Bailey’s is arguably more anti-Christian than anti-Jewish, as her works are deliberate perversions of Christianity, most especially her From Bethlehem to Calvary–a blueprint for the current New Age christology.
Interesting point. Were they Bolsheviks who happened to be Jews, or Jews who were determined to be Bolsheviks?
I’m not sure. Don’t know enough about it. But you can’t be either together in any direction. Just like I don’t think you can be a Christian and a mass murder kind of goes against the good Samaritan thing. You can’t be a good jew and stand by starving people out when it says to leave the corners of your field for the widows, poor, and orphans. Both are just banners to try to hide the inevitable – narcissistic, power hungry, nuts…that were baptized _____ or had a bar mitzvah.
But if you are alluding to the fact that Adolf Hitler was fascist just trying to become a good Christian, I believe that I would have to disagree with that.
People in power will most likely abusive it. Odd umbilical doctrines are not monopoly held by Christians only:
If a ‘goy’ (Gentile) hits a Jew he must be killed.” (Sanhedrin 58b)
If a Jew finds an object lost by a ‘goy’ it does not have to be returned.” (Baba Mezia 24a)
“If a Jew murders a ‘goy’ there will be no death penalty.” (Sanhedrin 57a)
“All children of the ‘goyim’ (Gentiles) are animals.” (Yebamoth 98a)
Girls born of the ‘goyim’ are in a state of ‘niddah’ (menstrual uncleanness!) from birth.” (Abodah Zarah 36b)
Christians who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.” (Rosh Hashanah 17a)
“If you eat with a ‘goy’ it is the same as eating with a dog.” (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)
Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” -NY Daily News, Feb 28, 1994
A Jew need not pay a Gentile (“Cuthean”) the wages owed him for work. –Sanhedrin 57a
I don’t think that these are backed up with the true meaning of biblical text. I think this is man flexing his ways. All religions that are made by man, including Judaism of today have the ability to create an environment where vulnerable people can be abused. People can hide behind what ever they like to be mean, rude, and have their way.
its supposed to be biblical
It wasn’t about were the Jews (as defined today) or not, it was about what vein of ‘Jewish’ did they adhere to. Even today’s judaism has black sheep.
Please see Yehudi Bauer, “God as a Surgeon,” Haaretz, June 1, 2007
An interesting consideration is that I recently heard that there are perhaps 31,000 sects of Christianity. In 70 ad Messianic Jews where a sect of Judaism called “followers of the way”. Most of us know the rest of the story. I’m seeing now about 7 basic sects of Judaism, excluding the Bue Jews (Buddhist Jews). I do consider true gentile believers in Jesus (the Ecclesia) as one of that seven according to Ephesians 2:15. Seems like Torah might be a clearer path than the alternatives. A path that one might not get so easily lost on. How to graciously allow for the exploration of these way’s while we are each processing our choices was a small thesis of mine found. Search on my website “workofwords” for the article “Finding you way back to the garden”.
Derek, thank you so much for sharing about this. I never heard of it before. I know that 40 million Russians died during that period by Stalin. Was this 7 – 10 million part of that or separate from that 40 million?
Isn’t it amazing what men will do for the exalting of self? As far as I know, Yeshua emptied Himself – Phippians 2, maybe looking more for people walking in this Way, may be of help.
I don’t know too much about it to tell you the truth. I’m not a history buff. My family escaped it to come over to America when , ‘it was going down’ that’s the only reason I know about it. It was under Stalin, I don’t know if it counted under him though to your original question. The reason why I say that is it wasn’t Stalin really. The guy put in charge was Genrikh Yagoda. A name that almost know one knows. But yes, Jewish, and he was also put in charge of it and managed the Gulag system that had I believe 40 million people. I hesitate to say that number because its so large, but I do believe that’s what was in their prison system. He was a Jew, and he designed it. All of the head officers were Jewish. I mean it’s a silent genocide – no one talks about it for various reasons.
Here is an stat that is scary… He killed as many people in 1 year as the amount of people that have diedin wars that we have been involved from WWII – 2003. All to say ruthless.
It makes sense why in the Holocaust they had Ukrainies orthodox Christians as the guards of the concentration camps and there was a lot going on more than Hilter trying to be a ‘good Christian’. There was fear, hatred, and much much more than some quotes from luthor But that’s the fact with a lot of these conflicts. For any of these, “empires’ or genocides to even pretend to carry God’s mission is not just an embarrassment but really repulsive.
“systematically and deliberately reworked the Bible ” Is the evidence of tampering with the text or is the claim that they interpreted the text differently?
The Hebrew text is locked in with features that surpass modern cryptography. Not so with the Greek texts.
I see the NT as a commentary on the OT. Being a Greek text written about a Hebrew teaching, I do not have the same expectations of authority as I have for Hebrew scripture.
I’m curious what you make of the fact that the LXX, the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, was translated by 70 (+ or -) Jewish rabbis ca. 200 BC.
I find that any translation hides the “mystery” and disturbs the “watermarks”. Many of the controls are at a higher level than the textual. In Hebrew AMR is both ‘said, word’ and ‘lamb’. Unless in the target language you can find a word that means both, you will lose the hint that the Lamb of God is the Word of God which created light.
But in any language one can map out the picture of Christ in GE 38 by the conceptual patterns.
My question was “why” this was done. I think the answer to that may help determine why the NT is in Greek rather than Hebrew.
Protestant Bibles use the MT to translate the OT rather than the LXX (as opposed to the RCC which uses the LXX), as it is always better to go the original language to translate, rather than translate from a translation. But, then the enterprising student can begin the journey of learning the original language to uncover more meaning, though I’m not sure that I’d be fully on board with your approach.
The apostles were preaching to the Jewish church in Hebrew as they taught how Jesus fulfilled the mystery. The Gospels were recorded as the teaching of the apostles so the Greeks could keep up. The apostles themselves understood more with time, as they studied, which is evidenced in the ‘new material’ contained from Mark to Mathew to Luke and then John.
Paul wrote in Greek because he was the apostle to the Gentiles. I expect ‘my approach’ needs validated by others.
The apostles were preaching to the Jewish “CHURCH”? Better check your text. The apostles spent their time in the synagogue, not the CHURCH. Ekklesia is translated CHURCH as a result of much later doctrine. Notice how it is used in the speech of Stephen. And notice that even in James the reference is specifically to SYNAGOGUE, not “Church.”
As I recall the only actual use of the word Synagogue in the KJV is “the Synagogue of Satan” Rev 3:9….ugggh.
Well, I am used to the KJV bias, so I use it, and I know that there are many texts that refer to synagogue (one in the OT) and a couple in Acts, I believe,
The Greek transliteration of the word we know as synagogue was based, I think, on the Hebrew qahal edah which did mean their own (Jewish) religious assembly, but in the Greek, it was commonly used (please correct me!) to denote ANY religion’s assembly, which technically would cover the church of Satan. Oops. Used the word “church”
To be fair, the translators should have translated it “church of Satan”, but, then, in 1601 they were rather big on insisting that there was only one church. Perhaps they should not have been so insistent…
Laurita,
I’d say you are mostly correct in your delineations (there are more than “a couple” instances of “synagogue” in Acts, e.g.), but I’ll go a step further, for the sake of clarity. The word synagogue is most often used for a physical building, though it can refer to the congregation of a particular synagogue, or even the ‘synagogue of Satan’. The word most often translated to English as “church” is the Greek ekklēsia, which more accurately means “assembly”, not a physical building. Unfortunately, many anachronistically import today’s meaning of “church” (a building in which adherents attend) onto the translation of “church” in Scripture, which is incorrect, as it’s actually ekklēsia, and more accurately “assembly”. And, Skip is correct that James 2:2 is “synagogue” in Greek, even though my NIV 1984 renders it “meeting”, which is just wrong. BDAG defines the latter usage as pertaining to “an assembly-place for Judeo-Christians”.
Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I use ‘church’ in that way.
But, why was the LXX written two centuries before Christ’s birth? And, why is it that most of Jesus’ quotes from the OT (as recorded by the Gospel writers) mirror the LXX instead of the MT (not all times, as some are closer to MT)? In addition, Paul’s works were written ca. 50-60AD, while the Gospels were (at least mostly) written later, in Greek, even though these were geared to a Jewish audience (and note John’s use of both Messias and Christos). Given your analysis, why weren’t there two Gospel traditions–one in Hebrew and one in Greek (again, what about that LXX)?
Please check Carson and Beale’s A Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament regarding your statement that most of the quotes are from the LXX. I think you will find that the NT authors take exceptional liberties when it comes to “quoting” the text.
I have this work, and, as I recall, though there are certain liberties taken, Jesus’ quotes conform most closely with the LXX in the majority of the cases.
I just skimmed a bit of this work, and found that, not including allusions, most NT quotes seem to favor the LXX. As representative of this is the commentary on Matthew 3:3 (Blomberg is the contributor here; p 13):
Perhaps you will take a longer look. In the Matthew commentary alone, there are 23 cases where alterations are made to citations of the Tanakh, many of which are not quotations from the LXX. Some seem to be akin to personal translations.
Are these “alterations” and/or “personal translations” or are they paraphrases, or even allusions/echoes? Regarding Matthew 5:31, e.g., Blomberg references H.D. Betz, “ancient Jewish interpretation did not always distinguish clearly between a quotation and a summary of a quotation” (p 24). The bottom line is that from what I’m reading, while there are times when the text alludes to/echoes other OT texts (or even Targumic texts), most times Matthew follows the LXX, noting that it closely follows the MT, or in a few Blomberg notes that Matthew improves upon LXX quotes of the MT–implying that the LXX is pretty faithful, generally, to the MT. I like Blomberg because he doesn’t try to ‘smooth’ over inconsistencies, and for that he’s sometimes criticized as being ‘too liberal’.
I’m now to 6:1-7:28, with Blomberg stating: “The rest of the Sermon on the Mount contains no formal quotations of the OT, although parallels to other Jewish literature abound (see Stoutenburg 1996)….” However, on 8:17 he notes: “Matthew’s rendering seems much closer to the MT than to the LXX.” But, again, this is the exception and not the norm.
On tampering with the text; Uriel Ben-Mordechai teaches a comparison of earlier greek texts to the collection of greek texts that most of our NT is based on. The blatant additions made clear by these earlier texts that the ‘fathers’ purposefully manipulated as well as the self serving mistranslations evident are a good place to start and you can buy search engine his name. Class is every Sabbath at 1pm US time.
I won’t sit in a ‘Christian’ church either since I left the last one.
And I won’t say a Jewish synagogue is any better.
God’s Torah is enough
Skip once urged us to read Mesillat Yesharim by Moses Luzzatto and to get his lectures on the same. I am reading it now and loneliness in my faith surrounded by Christian family provides me the time for reflection that is beneficial.
ON EDIT; It is Skip’s lectures on Luzzatto that should be acquired…it will blow your mind!
Richard
I find it worth listening to other views for in this I can get to the truth and often just drop a question or two that may get the narrator to THINK about what was said, all messages are true for the narrator even if it is founded on lies they do not know of…
I’d be more shocked if the claim was against the OT.
Earlier isn’t necessarily better, since they may have different provenance. But both earlier and later should be able to be checked the way the Bereans checked Paul’s teaching against the OT.
Hello Skip and others,
The answer to your questions is not very easily. In fact, I told my wife’s pastor that I am taking a course from a reliable resource to learn the rest of the story since the bulk of mainline Christianity wants me to only know its perspective on church history. I sent him a syllabus and of course, it will not change his espousements from the pulpit. I listened with interest to a recording of the late David Wilkerson’s 1973 end-time vision that he gave in a public address recently. His portrayal of what was coming for the church mirrored much of what you recount Reuther to have said in her chronicling early church history being largely motivated to political ends. History in Wilkerson’s vision is said to again repeat itself as it pertains to the world church. What do we say to those who would counter, These events are done, in the past, God will somehow use them for good, we apologized. Or, is this the political machine still trying to keep order?
David Russell
Skip, quoting Reuther, wrote: Justinian added other specifically religious laws, such as that which ordered that the Jewish Passover is never to fall ahead of the Christian Easter…. This wasn’t the result of some sort of anti-Jewish sentiment necessarily (I’m not saying there wasn’t any in general); this had more to do with the difference in the Jewish and Julian calendars. Since John the Gospel writer seems to indicate that Jesus was the new Passover Lamb, and this is part of Christian tradition, Easter is celebrated during the Passover.
As a coincidence, I just wrote something related to this, in which I even point to the possible use of midrashic interpretation in the NT from the OT (the remez and/or sod). For anyone interested, just search “crosswise blog”.
The nature of the mystery is that the metaphors are used before the reality, by which they are known, has occurred. So the use of the symbol may not be as creatively original as thought, but the intended use.
Hyssop אזוב –
Separated א bride ז distinct ו from the son ב
Jesus refused it because he was being closely identified with his bride in death
Beginning אז of the clarified ו revelation to man ב
The explosion of doctrine as the mystery is revealed at the cross is also known as the ‘marriage feast of the lamb’.
The holy א gushing זוב
His blood was poured out for us.
Father אב with the bride ז in his heart, but not yet made known/clarified ו (after the ז)
Similar to Yeshua, a pun to Yahweh with a marriage in his heart.
The ceremonial use of hyssop declared the separation of the congregation as a type of the bride. Jesus refusal indicated that he was one flesh with the bride.
Jesus refused the wine mixed with myrrh in Mark 15:23; but, He received[/took] the wine-soaked sponge upon hyssop in John 19:30.
The same act can be seen as either event, and both interpretation are true in the picture. Was there one demoniac or two? It depends on the prophecy that you are relating it to. Is he the only begotten son or the un-begotten only son.
The Greek sees a contradiction, the Hebrew an intentional riddle.
They are both literally true. It was put to his mouth. Mark is probably more literally true, in that he did not fully partake of it. John is interpreting as ‘he took enough’.
They may have been two different events since the drink is described differently: Mark’s picture is wine mingled with myrrh, John’s uses vinegar. They are linking to different prophecies.
Yes, the Markan account uses oinos, wine, mixed with myrrh (esmyrnismenon, verbal form of smyrna, a Semitic ‘loanword’); whereas, John records the wine vinegar as oxos, the same word used in Psalm 69:21 (LXX 68:22). It is assumed that Jesus refused the former because of its medicinal, pain-numbing qualities, though he received the latter because it only slaked thirst–and to fulfill Scripture. As I note in my own analysis, I do believe that Psalm 69:21 and 22:15 (LXX 21:16) are in view. Moreover, I think this can be reconciled with the Markan account (though I didn’t note this, as that goes just a bit beyond the scope of my intent in the article).
Skip, I know you are half-way around the world right now, but I am wondering if you have a “best source” for this title, and if that source somehow (like Amazon Smile) supports this ministry.
I’m really struggling to find the right balance here. I hear all that Skip is saying, but at the same time, in my ‘church’ community and beyond I know many, many people who love the Lord deeply, and who, while unaware of the machinations and scriptural distortions of many of the early church fathers, seek to serve the Father above all else. And I cannot deny that He is using them and related ministries to bring forgiveness, healing and (I believe) His salvation to many. It seems to me (and I think Skip has said as much elsewhere) that the Father uses what we give Him, so whether the available ‘window’ we give is wide (based on Torah-observance and following the Messiah) or narrower (the traditional Christian interpretation of the gospel), He is achieving His purposes.
John, it is tuff to not have contact or relations with those of the church community, I love my family and friends even though. But my resistance to participating in the church community rests on the doctrine that they are under a new covenant and that the ‘old’ covenant has not place in salvation. This is about the Torah or God’s instructions for His community. If the denial of God’s spoken revelation to Moshe is ok then that is where I can’t pray or worship the ‘god’ they know because it can’t be the God of Israel they are worshipping. So how do I accept they are seeking a god I don’t know? Just because they hold a book that contains some semblance of what God spoke, do I conclude they are drawing near to what they deny?
I take your point Richard. It’s still not an easy way forward for me, especially since my wife and I don’t see eye-to-eye on this! But she still loves me (and I her!) 🙂
You know that I agree with your view. God uses what we give Him, and sometimes even what we don’t. Our lack of understanding doesn’t not prevent His grace from being exhibited in life. My issue is never with the individual believer but with the SYSTEM, the INSTITUTION, that continues to promote non-biblical, mistaken historical perspectives, usually out of ignorance.
I’ve heard it said that ignorance is a form of knowledge, the sad part is when it is a chosen knowledge.
Thanks, yes, it’s helpful to frame it in that way.
I would have to say John Adam’s comment which came a few after mine is another way of asking the same question I posed. Yet it got buried as more “theological cynosure occurred between a small minority. I did find my answer within the thread though. We counter by seeking truth where God leads us to find it and being willing to follow, (John 10:27-28). Also, Jacob 1:5-6. One day “we” will “all” give an account before YHVH for this life; I think preparing for that occasion might be best where to focus.
David Russell
I find an interesting correlation between this word today and some of the comments with the actual history of St. Francis of Assisi. First He left Assisi naked. Went down the hill and rebuilt a small church there. He was actually Saint Francis who turned his naked derriere on Assisi. After he died they hauled his corpse up the hill and put it in the basilica to get the pocket change brought by his devotees. Some people never change…Also down the hill among the poor where he actually lived some pope years later dumped a Cathedral on top of his little modest church. That was the one he rebuilt in obedience to God who called him to rebuild his church. He took that seriously and in true Hebraic fashion just put stone back upon stone..Yet when I was there many years ago his little church still had life, real spiritual life and a sense of the holy, while up the hill was Disneyland. Some things to consider.
There is another newer book that I would recommend for anyone who is interested that documents in great detail many of the “power plays” of the “church” with a narrower focus than what Skip describes. It is “The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma” by Kegan A. Chandler. His book specifically focuses on the development of the dogma of the “Trinity”.
I think there is some misinformation in some of the previous comments. There are people and websites that try to prove that Stalin (and other mass murderers) are Jewish. The websites that promote these and other similar ideas are clearly, and openly admit to being anti-Jewish. Their purpose is, of course, to promote the idea that his murderous history is because he is Jewish. Reputable history websites disagree and, I think, disprove these ideas. If anything, his background and education was Christian. Joseph’s religious mother wanted him to become a priest and enrolled him in a seminary. However, he rebelled and instead of studying scripture he read the writings of Karl Marx and joined a local socialist group. He became an atheist and frequently argued with the priests at the seminary where his mother had enrolled him. He eventually was thrown out of the seminary when he failed to turn up for the tests.
He joined the Bolshevik party, robbed a bank to help fund the revolutionary cause he was part of, and eventually met Lenin who was impressed by him. When Lenin took power he appointed Stalin to be General Secretary of the Communist party. After Lenin’s death, Stalin eventually became dictator of the Soviet Union. In an effort to modernize the country, he ruthlessly imposed and enforced policies in factories to increase production. In an effort to “modernize” agriculture he began to collectivize farms, grouping them together to be owned by the state. As a result of Stalin’s efforts and policies, millions of farmers, who opposed his plan, resorted to killing livestock and secretly hoarding grain. About five million die in a series of famines.
My point is, in the end, I don’t think either Judaism or Christianity can be blamed for what he did. He certainly didn’t do what he did because he was Jewish or because of any of the beliefs or practices of Judaism. This is far different from what Skip describes in his blog. In that case people died directly as a result of how the “church” and the leaders responsible for it’s dogma misinterpreted the scriptures.