Generational Curse?
But He said, “Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them. Luke 11:46-47 NASB
Woe to you – I find no evidence that God curses offspring for their fathers’ sins. It seems quite clear that each person is held accountable for his or her own actions. The typical interpretation of “visiting the iniquity of the fathers” is simply mistaken. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences. Consequences are the inevitable effects of causes and, in this world, sin has consequences that extend beyond any singular lifetime. We all know this to be the case. Our personal experiences have lasting effects and, at the same time, we are the victims of other people’s bad choices. God does not assess guilt to these consequences, but He typically doesn’t remove them either. Life comes packaged. What we do with it is our own making but what we started with isn’t.
When Yeshua proclaimed that misfortune would fall upon these people and these cities (see the previous verses), he was talking about consequences. As a result of prior disbelief, certain dire consequences would fall upon these men. Had their fathers responded positively to the signs of the Kingdom, other things might have happened. But not now. Now the lot is cast. The dominoes fell. Bad things will happen.
Pay attention to the implication in this pronouncement. The current generation suffers because of the mistakes of the past generation. In fact, the choices made this day, as a result of past error, put this generation in a dangerous place when the Day of Judgment arrives. On that day, this generation will be accountable, even if they were led astray by their own heritage. Why? Because they should have seen the truth and repented, but they did not. They did not see that their own monuments honor those who subverted God’s purposes. In Yeshua’s words, these scribes built memorial tombs without considering who was responsible for the deaths of the prophets. The implication is that these scribes should have known the history of their own past and refused to endorse it!
There’s a tragic lesson here. Have we not built edifices to the very men who removed us from the truth? Are our shrines and temples and cathedrals and churches anything more than tombs to the same men who subverted Torah, persecuted Jews, added to the text and ushered in pagan syncretism? Have we not built monuments to those who rejected the Jewish Messiah and converted him to a pagan deity?
Do you suppose this declaration also applies? “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you” (Luke 10:13-14).
Topical Index: woe, generations, consequences, Tyre, Sidon, Luke 11:46-47, Luke 10:13-14
Ok we are guity, now what?
Life in prison.
His mercies are new every morming!
Hi Guys
Would it be reasonable do you think, in terms of examining people’s sins, to draw a distinction between those who are genuinely deceived, and those who are not and who know exactly what they are doing?
1 Timothy 2:14 (NKJV) seems to make such a distinction between Havah (Eve) and Adam
“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”
Would it be fair to say that Adam’s sin had more gravity because he knew he was out of line by not standing up to Havah and Satan, but instead, sinned in light of a full knowledge of the facts; whereas Havah still sinned with ensuing grave consequences, but thought she was doing the right thing?
It seems to me that there are those in the history of Christianity who knew exactly what they were doing in giving rise to those problematic shrines, cathedrals and churches that Skip refers to, and that there are also many more who were brought up in ignorance of the facts and whose minds were shackled by deception, but who nevertheless had their hearts in the right place and who did what they believed to be right, even though it was actually error.
There are many Christians in history for example, who have been burned alive, buried alive and tortured to death in the most abominable ways for their belief in Yeshua (Jesus) and the God of the Bible. Their minds may have been shackled and narrowed by their particular culture, education and life experience, but what do we say about them in terms of their “sin” in failing to observe Torah for example?
I find it very difficult to think of them in the same light as those who knew what they were doing in terms of subverting Torah, persecuting Jews, adding to the text and ushering in pagan syncretism.
Is there not mercy and grace for those who sin because their is nothing in their life that points them to truth, and because they are surrounded by powerful forces which directs their thinking to that which seems plausible, but which is actually error?
Do not all of us need a bit of that kind of mercy and grace?
What do you think?
Richard
Yes, I think this is an appropriate distinction. And we all are “deliberate” and “unintentional.” Sacrifices for both are provided.
Thank you!!!
This brings to mind Jeremiah 16:19-21. “Surely our fathers have inherited lies,” is what the Gentiles will say. That’s us, isn’t it? Even though we are trying to put right, those “inherited lies,” of which we have become aware, it is often grievous to us to see these deceptions continue to occur.
This has been brought to mind recently by the posts I have seen, of those who are celebrating the Reformation. It reminds me of the few years I paused at that point in history, on my journey back to The Way.
I think you are right, Gayle. We cannot afford to pause anywhere!
You know, the Reformation was moving in the right direction – I challenge anybody who would rather not be enjoying the fruits of it right now – but it did NOT get us all the way out of Babylon, that’s for sure. I would like to say that I am afraid we have lost almost all the ground gained by the Reformation, however, and are now back at the gates of Babylon again, begging to be admitted, but this is because it did not get us all the way out – which I hold to be its chief failing – unless someone can show me a better one, anyway. For example, not one of the Reformers held the Ten Commandments to be nonbinding, but almost none of the churches today still preach that.
Life has a way of separating the goats from the sheep at testing times. These are the places where error fails us, and we are thrown all the way back upon the truth to start over. This is not a bad thing!
We are only held accountable for what we know, but I think also for what we turned a blind eye to because we were enjoying the fruits of sin, and the worst punishments are threatened upon those who put stumbling blocks in the way of others
Pray for forgiveness of unintentional sins with full contrition, but also pray to be shown what they are.
I would like to recommend the epic poem once again, called The Present Crisis by James Russell Lowell. This seems to be a perennial ditch mankind finds itself in. Good TW.
I’d say this TW was great until that second to last paragraph, which is mixed.
Regarding this claim of making Yeshua into a “pagan deity”, it seems that John the Gospel writer is ‘guilty’ of this, for he recounts hoi Ioudaioi as ‘trying all the harder to kill’ Yeshua for “making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). I’ve yet to see an adequate response to this. The usual Unitarian response is to appeal to 5:19, as if this somehow reverses the events of 5:17-18. However, 5:19 clearly articulates that the Son has direct access to the Father to the point that He “sees His Father”, then does the very things He sees His Father doing—all in direct violation of the Tanakh, in which YHWH tells Moses that no one can see YHWH’s “face”, and seemingly in direct opposition to John the narrator’s words own in 1:18, in which he rephrases Exodus 33:20. If no one can see God, yet Yeshua has seen God, what does this make Yeshua? The remainder of John 1:18 provides the answer: “monogenēs God [or “Son” if one argues against the textual evidence], the one in the bosom of the Father, this One revealed/exegeted Him.”
Monogenēs is a compound of monos and genos, the latter meaning, according to BDAG, ancestral stock, descendant. (One can quickly see that the English genus is derived from this term.) So, whether one accepts “God” or “Son” as the text for the next word matters little, as the meaning amounts to the same thing: The One Who revealed/exegeted God is ‘one genus’ in relation to God, i.e., of the same ancestral heritage.
Those who translate monogenēs as “only begotten” cannot be correct, of course, as God does not “beget”. Grammatically that translation doesn’t hold, for the word “beget” is gennaō—note the two “n”s.
But, if all this is not convincing, John the Gospel writer uses the same monogenēs in 1:14 in direct reference to Word-made-flesh, whose “Glory” those contemporaneous with Yeshua did see—the One “Who came from the Father”.
No, Yeshua didn’t really “make Himself equal with God”, He was/is God.
I agree, Craig, that you cannot have it both ways. Either Yeshua is divine and worthy of worship, or He isn’t. If Yeshua is somehow divine, but still just a very special man, that to me smacks of everything a “pagan deity” represents. The only way I can personally resolve worshiping the Son is if He is God, for I am explicitly told to worship none other than God. I don’t have another way to resolve the pagan deity thing.
Amen Laurita!
But are you specifically told to worship Yeshua?
You don’t?
Neither do I. I worship what he introduced by trying to be likeminded. Stil some light years to go…
Philippians 2:10?
Craig I don’t get the same meaning that I suspect you do out of this verse. God has just elevated Messiah to a position of complete authority. That is why all the knees will bow. Pharaoh elevated Joseph and all the knees bowed to him… but he was not Pharaoh.
I don’t see this as analogous. In Philippians it is all who will bend their knee to Yeshua, in obedience to God the Father.
Of pertinence here is that John the Revelator was specifically told not to worship an angel (Rev 19:10), yet when the glorified Yeshua appeared to the Revelator and he “fell at His feet as though dead”, Yeshua’s response was “Do not be afraid” (Rev 1:17-18), describing Himself in YHWH language as “the First and the Last”, as opposed to instructing him not to worship, implying that He accepted the Revelator’s worship.
Craig, Paul may be wrong here. In Revelations the instructions is not to bow down and worship as he is a fellow worker and only God is worth worshipping.
Could Paul not have implied that he was the last example unto others…? And it is this example of living that must we followed…
Philippians 2:11….to the glory of God the Father.
What does the word divine actually mean? Are angels divine? For many the word simply means heavenly. I prefer to use the word deity. Also confusing is the word worship. In old English it meant pay homage. In Canada provincial court judges and city mayors are called your worship. This is in keeping with their authority. In my copy of Darby every reference to worship other than specifically to God in the Temple is translated paid homage to. For me this helps. Disciples and believers paid homage to Yeshua as the Messiah. They did not worship him as God, notwithstanding NIV.
Laurita was responding to my comment illustrating that John identified Jesus as God. It’s clear by her context that “divine and worthy of worship” means “Deity and worthy of worship”. I think you’ll agree that no matter the different nuances of the word “worship”, we are to worship God. But the real issue, the one you are skirting here, is what to make of John 5:18-19 (1:18, 1:14) in proper context.
Hard to type on little keyboard… I am simply stating my own opinion. I asked the question about divine because for me the word is confusing. I would say that heavenly things are divine but not necessarily deity. I use that word only for God. I find the word worship equally confusing. I restrict it only to those situations in which God is definetly involved. The reason I say this is because people tell me that Jesus is God because he is worshipped. If I say that judges and mayors are also worshipped because up until recently the word meant pay homage a debate starts. For me I only use the word worship if I can immediately add to it as God. I am not trying to “skirt” anything. You have raised John 5:18-19 so I will give you my shekel’s worth… when the Ioudaioi were now seeking to kill Yeshua I think they were angry that he declared such an intimate relationship with God as his Father. They conclude that Yeshua is claiming authority that only God possesses. In my opinion they are NOT thinking that Yeshua is claiming to be God Himself. Otherwise the accusation would have been raised at Yeshua’s trial. I think the sin of Adam was to grasp “equality with God” by deciding to ignore a direct commandment of God. In my mind he was not saying “I am God”, A parent may face something similar when telling a son to be home by midnight and the son replies…I will come home when I decide to. The child is not claiming to be the parent but is claiming equal authority. At the end of the day these are my own thoughts. I don’t mind at all if others disagree.
As for me, I can only type well on a PC keyboard–forget phones, tablets, etc. Call me a Luddite, I guess.
Yes, hoi Ioudaioi were angry that Yeshua called God “His own Father”, opining that this made Him “equal with God”. I think what you’re missing is that by this statement Yeshua was implicitly claiming to be “the Son of God” in a peculiarly intimate way, which was precisely the reason they presented to Pilate in John 19:7 in calling for His crucifixion.
I had intended to address the fact that you hadn’t addressed the other things in my specific comment, but I see you’ve now done so in a more recent response. I’ll comment there.
What is the difference between “worship” and “homage”? And no one has told me yet why Jews thought it was a problem to pay homage to Ceasar.
Could anybody show me anyone on this planet today that an orthodox Jew at least, is currently paying said homage to? I would like to see this. I have a problem with things I cannot see how they work.
And most Jews think of Yeshua as a great rabbi, but I see none of them pay homage to Him, either, which they shouldn’t have a problem with if that merely means that they are demonstrating “obedience to the Father” He claims He represented, which they acknowledge He did. There is something missing here that I think I need a real Jew to clear up.
I think you’re missing the point here. Many orthodox Jews pay homage to the sages, and, if we follow Flusser, Yeshua qualifies as a sage. But, and this is a big one, because the CHURCH claims “Jesus” is God, Jews are reticent to claim him as a sage (with some exceptions). No Jew WORSHIPS a sage, but they certainly honor them as men very close to God, highly influential and worthy of following. Contemporary examples abound. The issue for Jews about Yeshua is WHAT THE CHRUCH TEACHES, not what Yeshua himself taught or what his disciples probably believed. When you begin your thinking about this by starting with the Church’s view, you will automatically eliminate any possible approach to Jewish orthodoxy. You will also read all the texts as support for your presupposition.
As I have argued time and again, the issue is NOT the text. It is the paradigm. Until you are ready to think seriously about a different, but legitimate, paradigm, you will always end up where you seem to be now, and you will reject the orthodox Jewish view as incompatible, by which most people mean, “doesn’t fit my paradigm.”
Laurita, for me the act of homage is deferential and respectful. In the army soldiers salute an officer. In Japan people bow to each other, and in most cases people stand for the national anthem. I think the Jews had a problem paying homage to Caesar as God. in the officers mess I attended someone would yell out “room” when a senior officer entered. Everybody stood up. Then he/she would quickly say “as you were” and things resumed as they were. I don’t think the Jews had a problem doing something similar for Caesar unless he thought he was actually God. Yeshua makes this clear I think when he says to render to Caesar what is rightfully Caesar’s, and to God what is rightfully God’s. For me Caesar deserves homage like the Colonel but not worship as God. I know Orthodox Jewish officers who have no problem saluting a superior rank… as long as that individual does not think he is God
Thank you, HSB. I guess the problem was that the Jews knew that Ceasar did think himself god, and so they chose to die, rather than pay even homage. Would that put the definition of homage as respect to all who do not think they are god, and the definition of worship to all who do?
I think most people on this planet – perhaps reluctant Jews aside – do actually pay homage to Jesus Christ as one of the greatest people the planet has ever produced. That would be most of the religions.. BUT, when I go to look at the fruit of such a view, I do not see the fruit described in the Bible that should be there. Almost no one who thinks that (except ex Jesus-as-God folks, anyway) think of Him as their Saviour. I wonder why that is? I do know that we know things only by their fruit, now.
If you are arguing against Jesus as God, then I would say that argument is directed toward an ever smaller percentage of people, even though they are still rather vocal locally, anyway. Just wait a little more; they are going the way of the dinosaurs (whether they might know it or not) because that belief lies directly in the way of the UN statement of ecumenical unity, as well as the World Council Of Churches. Belief in Jesus as God is considered as an exclusionary, discriminatory belief that is labeled intolerance of others’ view of God. In other words, the rest of the world is on your side. but what I want to ask is, what is the fruit? Where is the power in such a belief? And what is wrong with all those Jews who do revere Him as a great rabbi? Why would they need to be convinced of anything further? Isn’t that enough? Well, enough for what, is what I want to ask?
I, too, appreciate the respect here. It is much more important that any issue. My stance on this one is that I think that Jesus Christ is no pagan deity whether some of us worship Him or just revere Him as an agent. Perhaps we could agree to stop short of saying that about each other, as I don’t think it is true. If we get hung up on the forms (agent or God) we may forget that His function comes first as our ONLY Saviour, as others have noted. And I am sticking with that. And with His Body.
Thank you for your patience with this topic. I really am trying to hash it out for a lot of precious other people in my life, and every little bit helps, as I don’t have a good grasp of a whole lot, so many times I am being difficult because of difficulty I am having with others, or even myself. It’s not difficulty with you! Thank you all again.
Laurita you are seeking truth from the depths of your heart, and I for one really appreciate your openness and the potential vulnerability it involves. When I make comments I sincerely am trying to state only where I am “at”. But I have a deep love for the Jewish people and my heart’s desire is that they acknowledge and fully accept their own Messiah who walked among them and laid down his precious life for them (and us Gentiles as well). I have been welcomed into Orthodox Jewish homes, attended weddings and yes danced in the circles of joy. On one occasion not too long ago I sat in the home of a dear friend who is a rabbi. His entire family was exterminated in the holocaust. I asked him if it was conceivable that Yeshua the Nazarene was Messiah of Israel but not God. He spoke passionately for a few minutes looking straight at me…in Hebrew!! He had forgotten that I don’t speak Hebrew… but it was an intensely spiritual moment. These folk are incredibly interested and serious about this. I for one believe they have been presented with a distorted picture of Yeshua. It is that distortion they reject. I pray that they will meet the risen Lord who died for them… and have a deep powerful reconnection with him just like Zechariah prophecy outlined. I am happy to step out of the room for a period of time when that blessed time arrives (just like the reunion of Joseph and his brothers)
Laurita I would love to comment further on your insights and questions when I get a bigger keyboard 🙂
HSB, you gave me the only reply I needed. I knew there must be a reason driving your passion, and I, too will stand with you any day outside the room of everything I ‘think’ I might already know if it means the salvation of a dear person. I am not asking for myself, or trying to ‘prove’ myself; there are a whole lot of precious ‘peeps’ out there! (I, too, feel the burden for lost Israel. They need grace from us, like Romans says, and I am looking hard for it!) These people ask me hard questions every day. Much harder ones than most of what we are tangling with here on Skip’s very special place. So many times, though, I am able to take what gets fleshed out here with confidence to these lost folks and they will say “that makes perfect sense”. “Yes, that is what I have been trying to say”. This is a great shout out to all here who are, like you, looking beyond yourself for others. That is the best encouragement of all for me.
P.S. at the risk of Skip just throwing me off this blog for going off-topic, does anybody have a good answer to the charge that YHVH is just another bloodthirsty god who goes around killing people for power (their take on the OT)? Please, no trite or philosophical answers; these folks are ex-‘christian’, and they already know all the boilerplate stuff. This is my current doozy.
P.P.S Skip, about the much more important topic of Jakarta: I have been thinking about your challenge to come up with a way to get girls out of their horrible futures and what I keep coming back to is the notion that we DO need to focus on at least one mother that has the potential for being a leader, and who is willing and able to supply a thought-out business plan for an alternative industry. From the little I have studied on the micro-loan model, most likely it would be clothing manufacture, and I hope that is why you are looking for someone who understands this. If we could get one mom out and set her on her feet, with the agreement that she would pay back the loan that got her out and financed by raising the funds to finance her own daughter, and, subsequently, others, under the same plan, then we perhaps would have a model that had the potential of replicating itself? I am searching my heart, and asking God, too, what it would take to buy the first woman out of her slavery as the feet on the ground for the rest of the solution: aka transferring the debt over to a pay-it-forward model, using the best local industry options. These young girls need not only a role model; they need a motivated and able local person to help them on an ongoing basis. There could be no better person to fit this than one of the moms, I would think. Thank you for the challenge!
One of the things you might consider bringing up in regards to the bloodthirsty accusation is that from the destruction of the flood, to the inhabitants of the land of caanan and even in the killing of the 2 sons of Eli, that they were all engaged in activities (and forcibly so) that were destroying others as well as creation itself. It’s not unlike a father who rises against an intruder into the home who has the intention of killing and stealing just cause they can. He’s forced to take a life to preserve real life. The stories of the pagan Gods were different in that they had no regard for humanity in general, other than what they could gain in their use of them or just because they had the power to play with them as they wished. If they’re willing to take an honest look at these things, they’ll find this is consistent throughout scripture, besides, it really shows how we respond in much the same manner, and the truth of “made in the image” begins to ring true.
Thank you, Robert; that helps.
Regarding your P.S.: Perhaps you could point out the exceptions, such as the Books of Jonah and Ruth in which the former depicts YHWH specifically sending a (reluctant) messenger to spare an entire people, the latter featuring Boaz, as kinsman-redeemer, who was a foreshadowing of Yeshua.
Without knowing anything beyond your brief sketch, I’ve a hunch they have been swayed by New Age / New Spirituality teachings which (some) dichotomize the Old and New Testaments, positing an evil YHWH over against a benevolent Father. The OT “god” in the eyes of some is an inferior “god” who made the world and all its “evil”. This is a variation of 2nd century Gnosticism, with YHWH as the Demiurge. Should this be the case, point out how the OT is quoted in the NT, thus illustrating continuity. One way is to show how YHWH is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that the Father has this same designation.
One way to find out is to ask who they believe Lucifer is. In the current New Age / New Spirituality, Lucifer is a benevolent being, distinct from Satan (the latter sometimes understood as YHWH!).
Laurita,
Yes, your statement about the UN statement of ecumenical unity and World Council of Churches is exactly correct. There is no issue of paying some sort of obeisance to Jesus Christ, but to make a claim that He is Deity is anathema in the popular view. With this in mind, John records Yeshua, as He interacted with the Pharisees (John 8):
Perhaps the two egō eimi statements were simply intended to mean “I am he”. Maybe this exchange is all about Messiahship, though I’m not sure what to make of “I am not of this world” in such a context. And perhaps Messianic expectations were such that they expected a Messiah to be resurrected from the dead (and raising Himself from the grave: John 2:19-22/10:17-18) after being ‘lifted up’. On the other hand, maybe John, for his own rhetorical effect–or perhaps Jesus really did speak these exact words–intended a double meaning, a device John employs quite a bit in his Gospel. Or maybe not. But these are important questions to ponder, I”d think. Especially in light of the overall content of John’s Gospel which precedes this discourse.
Whatever the case, shortly hereafter in this Gospel John records Jesus using egō eimi yet again (8:58) eliciting an extreme reaction by His adversaries. But maybe this is only significant in that his adversaries understood Yeshua as making the claim the He was greater than Abraham, rather than Jesus making a claim to the Divine Name. Or maybe He was making a claim to the Divine Name by virtue of ho logos inside Him. Perhaps it’s ho logos inside of the Messiah that allows Him to see what the Father does to the extent that He would do likewise. But, I’m stuck on how this would work given that He, as the Son, is and will be the sole Judge of all.
High or Low Christology? Since we all have come to appreciate the importance of context and paradigms in our interpretation of Scripture perhaps we should be asking: is it true that the early disciples saw Yeshua as God and if yes, when, why and how did they come to that understanding? During Yeshua’s earthy ministry, post resurrection or post ascension? And what exactly did these earliest followers mean by these designations? As being faithful Jews (whose frequent recitation of the Shema was all about Echad) would they have understood Yeshua as God … or as Divine… as a Divine Being… as Messiah… or as The Son of God or ??? and what did these terms mean to them, in their culture, language and paradigm? And just as importantly, how did Yeshua understand, view and describe Himself? From the multitude of articulate and persuasive comments by Craig and Laurita I know their view fairly well [having held the same, (apparently loosely) for many years] but in order to be properly aligned with reality, what I must attempt to understand are the views of those who walked, talked and knew Yeshua in the flesh. A book by Bart D. Ehrman “HOW JESUS BECAME GOD: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher From Galilee” delves into this critical discussion and has helped me … to add dirt to the already muddy waters of this subject! I don’t mind the mud as much as the muddle, particularly as long as the mud is not being slung at one another! So thanks to everyone for keeping things civil. It is one of the many small joys of being a member of this community.
Amen Craig!
Craig I notice you put quote marks for “sees His Father”. I think the full text says “whatsoever he sees the Father doing”. The focus of the verse is what God is doing. I am confused why you say this is “direct violation of the Tanach”. Yeshua did not say in the verse that he “saw God” who is Spirit, rather Yeshua says he saw what “God was doing”. Am I missing something here?
Given that no one can see God, and Yeshua claims that He “does what He sees the Father doing”, this text is a very clear claim that Yeshua saw God the Father, something Moses was not permitted to do and something specifically declared that no one can do in John 1:18. In fact, Yeshua saw the Father to the extent that He saw what the Father did and did likewise.
I am replying to Craig’s comment, but it is really for everyone who has been part of this blog issue. I just want to say that I am sure we are all here because we are all seeking to know the truth. Each one has a different path to that goal, and consequently, will approach the problems a little differently. Perhaps that’s why I allow so much diversity on this blog. If I ever felt someone was simply being argumentative or obstreperous (you can look that one up), I would cut them off. So clearly I don’t think that of all of you. BUT, I’ve really finished debating this Trinity issue. It has been going on here for several years now, with lots of proof texting and theological arguments, and I don’t find anything new or compelling. You, of course, may continue, but I am choosing to opt out. Frankly, I have other things to attend to, like women who are abused because they are desperately poor. The theology can wait for heaven (or wherever it is appropriate). No criticism (I really mean that). Just my reality.
Come to Jakarta if you want to see what I’m talking about.
If we have eyes to see, it is right here in front of us every day.
Rome burns and Nero fiddles.
Amen brother go be, do and have in Messiah Yeshua, in him we live and breath and have our being…
Until now, I’ve chosen not to directly respond to this particular comment, for blog comments are by nature very limited due to space. Instead, I chose to write a blog series on the prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18), focusing on grammar. One can argue interpretation, but it must line up with the grammar in full context. In responding in this way, I cannot be construed as merely proof-texting. I’ve purposely engaged with some other viewpoints in applicable verses, though it’s impossible to cover them all. (E.g., I briefly engage with Chang in two footnotes, though I’ve also discussed some alternate views in the main text.)
To find it, just search: notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com. I’ve posted a very brief blog on Black Friday, temporarily interrupting the series, so just scroll a bit further down. Each part contains hyperlinks to previous and future parts. Anyone reading here is free to post a comment (or not, of course). Even if one is not inclined to comment, I think the reader will find things of interest, and likely something new (I’ve learned new things as I wrote—I always do). For nearly a year I’ve been interacting with a non-Trinitarian, though his views are different than the way I construe anyone’s on here (they’re more binitarian, placing the Son a bit lower than the Father).
The series will take some time to finish. The first five verses took almost a month.
Skip: on a side note, I don’t think it was right to attempt to dichotomize theology and good works. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, you’d have to admit that your blog posts themselves are examples of theologizing.
I get that my propensity is toward disfunctional behaviors. Yet I have a new law working in me a law of life in messiah. So while my old nature is drawn to disfunctional behaviors like a moth to the fire my new self, my new heart reacts , convicts me and if I am carefull and paying attention it pulls me out of the nose dive like a fighter pilot pulls his spitfire out of the deadly spin back into the fight and I head off to the battlefield for rightiousness and godliness and living to the full.
Parts of these discussions are sorrowfully real to me. I was more capable at knowledge than intimate intuitive knowing. We have been circling around empathy, power and consequences and I’d like to bring a few perspective that have challenged and moved me. Hopefully these are doors of invitation to know Yeshua vs simply share my knowledge.
Knowing anyone is proportional to intimacy and in Hebrew culture relationship and responsibility are bound together in covenant. If the earliest covenant is friend which includes; all that I am and all that I have I will proactively make available to you; then I have to be joined to you relational, emotional and to some extent physical. Paul builds on this in his desire to know him, to know the fellowship of his sufferings, the power of his resurrection and to be conformed to his death. Interestingly his knowing him is not limited to the past. In fact in several writings Paul seems to say I chose to not know him from the past. Paul is aiming for the resurrection and as John would later write the first resurrection not the second. A time when torah pours fourth from zion etc etc.
I feel the real challenge of this man/god discussion in my whole being and I used to defer to dealing with that feeling by understanding who Yeshua is. Then I realized the greater challenge was to me and my manhood. Yeshua was described as the second Adam. What does it mean to be man, an Adam? What is a mature man? What is a man that can be a bond servant to YHVH and a bond servant to Yeshua? What does it mean to be a prisoner of the lord? Can I be a friend to Yeshua? Can I adore a man without checking in with the sexual identity police? Am I able to join in a passion that goes to the cross and to submit that to and with the power of an Ezer Kenegdo? Am I able to live in desperation for the building of a body that is beyond my life? Can I as a man respond with chesed in any and all of this?
All of these have consequences far beyond myself. The word consequences is etymologically that which follows. Knowing whom I follow is key and yet I still have painful memories of following the dictates of my own heart. That has guided me to know him more than I know myself. Maybe, just maybe being a friend is the gateway to shared experiences so rich we will know him in ways we can’t even think or imagine.
Both questions are equally important- who do you say I am—who told you?
Had it not been for the Reformation, many of us would still be enslaved to hearing liturgy in Latin! Had it not been for the persecution of God-fearing men and women in Europe after the Reformation and the early American revivals, many of us would still be reading from the German Bible and practicing as Lutherans, or reading from the King James Bible and practicing Anglicanism (or possibly some form of Calvinism). My theological history is dispensationalism. It was a sincere desire to take literally the passages of Scripture that promised a future to Israel. I thank God for this shimmer of light within my past theological system. I am also thankful for the Reformers’ love for the original languages. This discipline gave me the ability to sort out vast sorts of error from the truth (e.g., how shameful it is to translate Pesach as “Easter” in Acts 12:4, KJV). However, the worldview and theological tradition out of which Protestantism (and dispensationalism) arose is decidedly Greco-Roman. Many of the early church fathers were trained in Hellenistic philosophy. The early church councils were completely devoid of Jewish believers. The Roman Church developed its own dogma to replace and supersede the history of the Jews. This is my theological heritage. It was “good”, yet incredibly ignorant. It was promoted by men who were wedded to Roman culture and destiny. It infects doctrine, dogma, and praxis. Every Bible translation, even the modern “Jewish” Bibles are infected with Hellenism. It is everywhere.
I appreciate Skip raising the issues. What is frustrating is, he often leaves the application to us. For me, I spent 47 years caught up in lies, masked as truth. [I can’t imagine how God feels! Yet he is so patient with us.] But there was a lot of truth mixed in. A lot! Knowing what to throw away and what to keep is especially challenging. “Fear God and keep his commandments; this is the whole duty of man.”
Paul told his converts in 2 Cor. 6: 14-18 to come out from among them (the world system) and to not touch the unclean thing. He strings together passages from the Tanak speaking directly to and for the Israelites, some from Leviticus, some from Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, “Old” and “New” Covenant passages smashed together. Those passages are not insignificant. He prefaces his quotes with “For we are the sanctuary of the living God, as God said:” This is huge. My history is not the history of Rome. My history is the history of God’s people from Scripture. History IS identity. But HOW do I practically live this out?
There is one MAN who exhibited absolute faithfulness to Yahweh. Can we all agree on that? [Personally, I find it difficult to say (within a Trinitarian framework) that there is one God who exhibited absolute faithfulness to Yahweh.] Jesus showed us the way, the upside down kingdom. He is the King, we are his subjects. Hallelujah! If we obey him, regardless of our theological persuasions, we will not have fulfilled God’s demands upon our lives? Will we not have obeyed Torah? Will we not have humbled ourselves to the point of death, even if that means being crucified on an execution stake? If truth is alive, then we should certainly be living it, in our marriages, in our jobs, in our personal activities, in our assemblies. We have no more excuses! Do it!
Hallelujah brother, as my dearest teacher Art Katz writes in his profound little book “The Spirit of Truth” “The truth is in us and we in it only to the degree we actually walk in it” Yeshua is the TRUTH…
Thank you so much for these reflections.
I came to an understanding of this and a lot of the other equations in scripture, when I wasn’t looking for them. Patterns in 1 Corinthians for example that led me back to Jewish scripture and I came to it through some secular concepts in sociology, philosophy, systems theory and social modeling. And through that I started to understand how the laws work. And concepts like tzedakah, and the riddle in the paradox of the commandments and negotiating them with the appropriate application of negotiation the root of mercy. It’s all so beautiful.
Your contributions are a blessing. They both help me check my work and find deeper understanding.
I am not Jewish. I used to be a Christian missionary before abandoning my faith and community on what I thought were moral grounds, but were rather based on some fundamental misunderstandings of even how the laws work. Paul confounded me always. And I know why now. And I also know how to reconcile Paul, as a queer person – one of our lord’s beautiful messy “monsters”, and I finally understand the suffering servant in a way I missed before. And that brought me back. And brought me back to a lot of what you talk about here and at other points on your blog.
So thank you.
HC, While I have not been appointed or anointed as the official greeter of this community I nevertheless welcome you to our beautiful band of broken and bandaged believers. It sounds as if you know something of both broken and bandaged. Skip’s words lead us (and sometimes pushes us, drags us or carries us) along a pathway of critical thinking and challenges us to examine our BS…
Belief Systems. Again it reads as if you are familiar with the concept. Hopefully you will find compassion, grace, mercy, long-suffering, healing, shalom, life and love here. Coupled with great dialogue, debate and a few new friends. Shalom, Michael
Michael, your acronyms are way better than mine. You have such a way with BS that always makes me smile. Nice welcome too on behalf of soooooooo many here I am sure!