Yeshua’s Message (1)
Soon afterwards, He began going around from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God. The twelve were with Him, Luke 8:1 NASB
The kingdom of God – The expression “kingdom of God” is the same as Matthew’s circumlocution, “king of heaven.” What we read about one is equivalent to what we read about the other. And one of the most important things we read about this idea is that it is the dominant theme of the message of the Messiah. Yes, that’s right. Yeshua did not come to preach that he was the salvation of the world, that following him would give you a good life, that speaking his name would grant you miraculous powers or that he was even interested in getting you to heaven. He taught people about the kingdom of God. Unfortunately, the Church has not followed his direction.
But it remains a fact worth pondering that Jesus had preached the kingdom, while the Church preached Jesus. And thus we are faced with a danger: we may so preach Jesus that we lost the vision of the kingdom, the mended creation.[1]
In other words, we have grown up in a religious culture that focused on the person rather than his message. We’ve spent countless hours debating his status, character and role without listening to what he said about living. We have replaced his instructions with idols of his person. As Stendahl notes, “ . . . the kingdom of which Jesus spoke has been swallowed up into personalized christology. The kingdom-language with its powerful theological potential has somehow been neutralized and emasculated.”[2]
Ask this telling question: What’s more important to you: The Messiah or the message he proclaimed? Christianity is a celebrity religion. It’s focused on the persons of the Godhead. It’s built on the equivocation surrounding these persons. It distinguishes itself from its monotheistic brothers by the emphasis on personal celebrities. Consider the status of celebrities in Judaism. When you enter a synagogue, do you find representations of the great prophets sculptured on the ceilings? Is there a prominent display of the altar or the temple? No, what you find is the central focus on the message—the Torah. The men who delivered it are important, of course, but they were messengers. What matters is the message.
Ask yourself if the Church could survive without the message of Yeshua? The answer is obvious. Yes! It has done so for centuries. Yeshua brought the message of Mosaic reformation. The Church summarily dismissed that message in order to elevate the messenger. Could the Church survive without the central celebrity—Mary or the Child? Probably not. And what does that say about what we believe? Do you know what the message of the kingdom of God is?
Topical Index: kingdom of God, message, celebrity, Church, Luke 8:1
[1] Krister Stendahl, Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide (1984), p. 236.
[2] Krister Stendahl, One Canon Is Enough, p. 64.
Sorry. Should read “Could the Church survive WITHOUT a central celebrity?” Sometimes I write slower than I think.
Again Skip your spot on, razor sharp and on message. This is the truth;YHVH is who he said he is, is about what he said he would be about and will accomplish it. His will will be done, no matter what we might think or believe about him. The consistent message of Torah, the annual message of the Feast of YHVH and the very earth reveals that the King of The Universe has created us for a relationship with himself, that we might know and enjoy him within his creation. One that he gave us to mange and tend. We with that role and responsibility we chose rather to walk away (with the very free will he gave us) from him and generally chase after our own desires and inclinations. We want to be king… I have always defined religion as “man’s interpretation of relationship with God.” God defined for us in Torah and it’s perfect manifestation Messiah Yeshua, who YHVH is, how we should live and how we should relate to himself, one another specifically and life in general. Religions generally tell us how to serve their leaders and build up the institutions that grow up about them to encase them and hold its members captive to serve them. But then that’s just my opinion everyone is welcome to there own. Our creator gave each of us that freedom. We each must choose whom we shall serve and what we will believe is true.
Far more than once have I heard the sad. strained. and even desperate self-questioning of someone, miserably trapped in their life of sin, (like “the rich young ruler”asking how he may obtain eternal life) whose trust I had earned and who had come to me for help, someone who was spiritually deaf, dumb, and blind, in great part because of the “easy-believism” message with which they had been brain-washed and indoctrinated by “the Church”, perseveratingly asking in a variety of ways, “Am I even save”, with little or no sincere questioning, concern, or desire to know how they are to live rightly. And it’s even worse if they were raised in a family that has been in “the Church” for multiple generations.
It’s like trying to push through the door of their cell room in which they are now trapped, in order to save them from their prison of sin and death, with all the preachers, teachers, family members, and friends standing on the other side of the door with their full weight pressed against that door, telling this one not to listen, not to trust the messenger or the message.
It’s like the seemingly impossible condition of trying to tell some helpless soul who doesn’t know your language how to get out of get out of a life-threatening predicament and they are unable to even focus on what you are trying to convey to them, not only because you speak another language, but because they are over-taken by their emotional distress, mental confusion, and their deceived obsession of trying to make the same repeatedly failed means of deliverance work for them as they erroneously think it should.
We may want to quit. We may want to give up. We may want to stop trying. But until they stop asking, until they stop coming, until they walk away, we must continue to proclaim the gospel of hope that is within us, Messiah and the kingdom of heaven. What choice do we have?
“For if we are out of our minds, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Messiah compels us, since we have concluded that One died for all; as a result all died. And He died for all so that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for the One who died for them and was raised.” [2Co 5:13-15]
“But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving, for he had much property. Then Yeshua said to His disciples, ‘Amen, I tell you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’ When the disciples heard this, they were utterly astonished and said, ‘Then who can be saved?’ And looking, Yeshua said to them, ‘With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’”
[Mat 19:22-26]
“But if I say: ‘I won’t mention Him, or speak any more in His Name,’ then it is like fire burning in my heart—shut up in my bones—I weary myself holding it in, but I cannot.'” [Jer 20:9]
This is, sadly, all true.
Who is looking for Messiah’s Return “in glory” these days? Who has studied the gospel that we were given to “preach unto the whole world (so) THEN the end shall come”? Is that not the gospel Yeshua preached – “this gospel of the kingdom”?
I think we are too quick to condemn the Jews who could not hear it then because they were confusing His First Coming with His Second Coming. I am firmly convinced we suffer from the opposite problem: we want Him to come in ‘peace’ when He clearly has promised to come with judgment and a sword this time. We have no room to talk.
We have a gospel commission – a kingdom message to give to the world, and the delivery of that message? The example of what that kingdom looks like in our own lives. When we get that right, the rest of the world will not be able to ignore the message. What message is that? The message of unity: the message of what the life of Yeshua look like perfectly reproduced in the completeness of His Body. What I believe we are trying to do right here (thank you so much, all of you here and Skip most of all for being faithful).
When we get that right, I believe the fight will come to us. I don’t think we are near where the apostles were – yet. I pray we get there soon.
“Even so, come, Lord Jesus”.
Even so
This makes so much sense to me. Indeed, so often we seem to forget or ignore the Father in today’s ‘church’.
But a question remains for me: Yeshua did say his blood was for the forgiveness of sins. That must be an integral part of the Kingdom, yes?
Hey John. I so agree with you about the significance of forgiveness of sin as an integral part of the Kingdom and the message of the Kingdom. And isn’t that a significant aspect of Torah, the Feast of YHVH, and even the fulfilled instructions in the Book of the Law concerning sacrificial offerings for atonement, etc., as well as the message of the apostles and prophets, and Messiah, Himself? My life has been radically converted because of it and it is a major influence in my motivation to trust, love, and serve YHVH.
An unforgiving king is a tyrant. But a forgiving king who has no rules, instruction, discipline, etc., is a Santa Claus. The gospel of Chrisitanity is almost exclusively about accepting “Jesus in your heart as Savior and Lord”, and the title of “Lord” is often just that, a title, because the message, teaching, and lifestyle is not about a life lived in relationship to Him as “Lord”, in actuality. The “Lord” part is largely lip-service, a matter of beliefs and confessions of faith, church attendance, worship through singing, financially supporting the pastor, building, and programs, being in co-dependent relationships that do not promote progressive “sanctification”, being reasonably decent people, etc., but not about the specific instructions according to which YHVH has commanded us to live, and with complete, uncompromising devotion to Him as the God of Israel.
Yes indeed, it’s because we have been taught that religion is about morality, belief and declarations (none of which are bad things) instead of covenant.
And even in teaching of the covenant it’s been a one-sided covenant that’s been taught, with the false doctrine of “eternal security”, “once saved always saved” garbage. However, He divorced Israel and said the the grafted in ones could also still be lopped off the tree.
You might want to be a bit more careful about the “divorced” Israel idea. That’s isn’t the message of Hosea.
“I noted that when backsliding Israel committed adultery I sent her away and gave her a certificate of divorce.” [Jer 3:8]
Not sure what translation this is. Yes, this is the OPENING message in Jeremiah, but, as you know, it doesn’t stay that way, does it? The opening message is the reason why Babylon will be used by God to bring Israel/Judah back to Him. So the writ wasn’t permanent, was it?
It’s basically the same in at least 21 different versions Bill,certificate, decree, writ, ….divorce, divorcement. But, OK. There will be a bringing back. But this conversation started with the comment that the covenant often isn’t taught or taught correctly, that it is taught as a one-sided covenant, that the concept “eternal security”, “once saved always saved”, isn’t correct, that there has been a cutting off (even a divorce), and there is a warning that there can yet be a cutting off. This is all the truth isn’t it? It is permanent for some, right? Isn’t this part of the message of what scholars, teachers, apostles, prophets, etc. often don’t, but ought to, like Yeshua, be delivering?
Let’s try one question at a time. Jeremiah and other prophets speak of the divorce. Hosea and other prophets speak of God’s wooing Israel back. Your comment suggests that the return of Israel to God is something in the future. Is that what you think?
Present progressive, just like the coming of the kingdom of heaven, knowing Him, salvation, and the restoration of all things.
Skip replies to Jerry and Lisa, “Jeremiah and other prophets speak of the divorce. Hosea and other prophets speak of God’s wooing Israel back . . .” and, “the writ wasn’t permanent, was it?”
I contend, for better or worse, God’s Law says it was.
The return of Israel to God WAS something future in the time of these prophets in the form of a NEW Covenant. Does this not imply, and in fact demand, that the OLD Covenant was abolished? That Israel was divorced? This seems difficult for some to accept, thinking that the Old Covenant was an “eternal” covenant. But as I have recently argued here (Jan 16), Hebrew has no concept of “eternal” only of an “age” or “eon” (“aeon” in the NT).
But THE major problem with YHWH remarrying Israel is this. Once a man divorces his wife, he is never permitted, by YHWH’s own law, to take her back and marry her again.
JPS Deut 24:4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD;
So, how can Israel be reconciled with her husband YHWH?
The first six verses of Romans 7 explain how. A married woman is bound by law to the living husband, but she is free from the law when the husband dies, and she is free to marry another. As such, we too have become dead (freed) to the law by the (dead) body of Christ so that we may be married to Another; – Him raised from the dead. We are free from the law (the context is only the old marriage contract) so that we can now serve Him in newness of spirit, not in oldness of letter.
Youngs Literal Rom 7:1 Are ye ignorant, brethren—for to those knowing law I speak—that the law hath lordship over the man as long as he liveth?
2 for the married woman to the living husband hath been bound by law, and if the husband may die, she hath been free from the law of the husband;
3 so, then, the husband being alive, an adulteress she shall be called if she may become another man’s; and if the husband may die, she is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress, having become another man’s.
4 SO THAT, MY BRETHERN, YE ALSO WERE MADE DEAD TO THE LAW THROUGH THE BODY OF THE CHRIST, FOR YOUR BECOMING ANOTHER’S, WHO OUT OF THE DEAD WAS RAISED UP, THAT WE MIGHT BEAR FRUIT TO GOD;
Subsequently, this brings new evidence to the pre-existent YHWH debate further suggesting that YHWH is NOT the Father, and that YHWH emptied Himself of “divinity” and became human so that He could die, and become the first of a new Being, (Another), and marry Israel in a New and better Marriage Covenant.
Very interesting Daniel. I have not heard this paradigm. I am trying to wrap my head around the last paragraph. According to your statement that YHWH is not the Father…..I guess you are implying that Yeshua is YHWH? And that the Father is…?
Thanks
And that the Father is…? Answer: INVISIBLE
Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the Only- Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Joh 5:37 And He sending Me, the Father Himself, has borne witness of Me. Neither have you heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape.
1Jn 4:12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and His love is perfected in us.
1Ti 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
1Ti 6:16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in light which CANNOT BE APPROACHED, whom no one of men have seen, NOR CAN SEE; to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.
Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.
Heb 11:27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king, for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible.
SIX times (I have found) the Bible tells us God the Father is invisible. That being the case, I am left with the logical deduction that YHWH can’t be the Father because YHWH was visible in the Old Testament. For example, right from Genesis 2 (Concordant Literal Version)
Gen 2:16 And Yahweh Elohim instructed the human, saying: From every tree of the garden you may eat, yea eat
I am picking on that version because it correctly spells out the name of this God.
Yes, like everyone else, I have a paradigm, but I would like to think my paradigm is formed by the Scriptures instead of by tradition. Show me Scriptures to the contrary and I will change my paradigm.
Ok, I see where you are coming from.
Not here to try to prove you wrong. I have found that paradigms are way too hard to break when someone stands ready to defend. I know because that’s the way I am 🙂
Is this what one would also call “Oneness” theology?
By the way that wansn’t me who hit the “thumbs down”
Shalom
No, but I have good friends who are terrific students of the Bible who believe in “Oneness” and in their mind, the Son IS the Father, and the Father IS the Son. It baffles me but some how they say they are two aspects of the same God. There are a lot of verses they can point to for evidence of this Monotheism, e.g. I and the Father are one, and, If you have seen me, you have seen the Father, but I don’t understand how the Son can pray to the Father, and they can have two different wills, if they are the same Being.
Unfortunately, as we have discovered, those verses require a predisposition for the Trinitarian view in order to be used as evidence. Once again, the paradigm dictates the way we interpret the “facts.” If this were not so, all orthodox Jews would be LOGICALLY compelled to read the verses the same way as Christians. But, of course, they don’t. Their interpretations are just as legitimate (I would argue “more so”). Christians essentially tell Jews how to read their own Scriptures. A bit arrogant. But even if Christian Trinitarians view the verses from their own position, they must admit that there are other ways to read the same texts. That means the doctrine must be INFERRED, as all Trinitarian scholars admit. And that means the doctrine itself, by itself, is in serious peril of gross equivocation (as some Trinitarian scholars admit) and is therefore, on the plain reading, nonsense. But this never really upsets Trinitarians since they are wedded to the paradigm, not the verses.
All well and good Dan but you are ignoring many promises like Lev. 26:11, Lev. 26: 44-45, Deut. 4:31, Deut. 7:9, Is. 50:1, Jer. 30:11 and others. God NEVER breaks a promise, forgets, or says “oops” and He finishes what He starts. You have His Word on that. “Word” is the most powerful, the holiest word in the Bible. Holy, devoted. That is where it all starts and ends. That is precisely why the Jewish nation, language, culture, religion is alive today 3500 years later. What other nation can say that?
God’s covenant by definition is eternal. It does not require an adjectival modifier. He is INFINITELY more powerful and reliable than any human that ever existed so the onus of responsibility is beyond concept for Him to break. God can be nothing but trustworthy or He would not be God.
George, who are we talking about? Israel according to the flesh (genetics); Israel according to the politics; the Israel according to the dirt under people’s feet (land); the Israel you are because you say you are; the Israel that got lost; the Israel that reinvented itself, or the Israel YHVH says is Israel? And who, exactly, might that be?
Daniel; which covenant are we talking about? The first one; the second one; the one written on stone; the spiritual one written on hearts; the one Yeshua came to ratify – or the one He came to abolish; (I am sure there are several more)?
Skip has gone over some of this, but it would be nice if we could put it all together.
We are talking about the faithful followers of Torah in spirit exactly like Yeshua, not the hypoocritical letter of the law or (mis)interpretation and application by SOME members of the Sanhedrin, the political rulers in the era of Yeshua, from Mount Sinai to today continuously.
There has always been a remnant. Always will be.
We now have the George definition of Israel (thank you). Does the Dan definition agree?
Back to Dan: explain “covenant”, please?
George, you contend that God NEVER breaks a promise and that the Sinai covenant is an “everlasting” covenant (Lev 24:8) but it was CONDITIONAL on Israel’s obedience (Ex 19:5-6), so its repeal was possible (if not inevitable). As such it cannot be construed that it was (necessarily) everlasting when fragile components were built into it right from the start. No doubt God would keep His end of the agreement but, in this particular covenant, BOTH sides must maintain it.
The point is, “everlasting” cannot be the correct English translation for this word. Just as Strong suggests in his primary definition of “Olam”, the duration of this covenant is “concealed” because no one knows exactly how long it would be until the Israelites defaulted on it. Maybe a thousand years, or, maybe the next day.
Did not Jeremiah foretell of it being replaced by a new and better one (Jer 31:31)?
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, 32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;
Does not Hebrews 8: 7 & 13, confirm this?
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been without fault, then no place would have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:13 In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away.
Regarding your citations of “promises like Lev. 26:11, Lev. 26: 44-45, Deut. 4:31, Deut. 7:9, Is. 50:1, Jer. 30:11 and others. God NEVER breaks a promise,”
But Lev 26: 11 “My soul shall not abhor your” is conditional on 26:3 “IF you keep . . . THEN I will”
Lev 26: 44 . . . I will not cast them away, neither will I hate them, TO DESTROY THEM UTTERLY and to break my covenant with them.
True enough, God did not break His UNCONDITIONAL and AGE-LASTING covenant with ABRAHAM that he would always have untold millions of descendants, and NEVER wipe them out of existence like He did some nations, but He obviously was NOT keeping His promises of abundant food, health, wealth and security when they were slaves in Assyria and Babylon and scattered throughout the world.
It seems to me that God would, for a limited period of time, keep this covenant in effect. IF they obey, THEN things would be okay, IF not, THEN things go to rot. And that went on for hundreds of years but is that the best plan God can make forever? No, He had a better covenant in mind and this old faulty one would be replaced.
The same applies for the rest of your citations, at best, God is only promising never to fully destroy Israel.
Deu 4:31 He will not forsake you, nor DESTROY you
Deu 7:9 God who keeps covenant and mercy with them THAT LOVE HIM AND KEEP His commandments
Isa 50:1 Where is your mother’s bill of divorce, whom I have put away? Or to which of My creditors have I sold you? [This is rhetorical.] BEHOLD, YOU WERE SOLD for your iniquities, and your mother IS PUT AWAY for your sins.
Jer 30:11 For I am with you, says Jehovah, to save you. Though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you, yet I will NOT make a FULL END of you; but I will correct you in measure,
Daniel and George thank you taking a deeper look into the scriptures. The difference I read between the new and old covenant is the mediator or teacher not the content. Prior to Yeshua priest etc were needed to relay the message. These entities are not part of the new covenant… Agreement to an end. YHVH permits many so called teachers priests etc but in the end he changes and affects hearts to follow and do what is needed. Ye some so called sent individuals cannot be sent as YHVH did not keep this clause after Yeshua intervention…
Or is there a hidden covenant I am missing?
Why did you conveniently ignore Heb. 8:8 and refer only to 8:7 and 8:13;
“when I will effect a new covenant with THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH”? Does this create too much of a problem for replacement theologians?
I don’t know what gives you the idea I believe in replacement theology. Let me quote from my blogs above. I always state “ISRAEL” or “JUDAH” and never Christians or Gentiles.
The return of ISRAEL to God was . . . in the form of a new Covenant.
So, how can ISRAEL be reconciled with her husband YHWH? The first six verses of Romans 7 explain how.
YHWH emptied Himself . . . [in order to] marry ISRAEL in a New and better Marriage Covenant.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house ISRAEL, and with the house of JUDAH
So the Hebrews, the Jews, are and always will be the chosen people, right?
Amo 3:1 Hear this Word that Jehovah has spoken against you, SONS OF ISRAEL, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, 2 YOU ONLY have I known of ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.
ONLY ISRAEL can be God’s Chosen People but that doesn’t mean they are receiving God’s favor.
What does it mean? Israel is PERMANENTLY punished for their iniquities but not anyone else, any other sinner?
Luther’s friends are PERMANTLY forgiven by grace alone. ALONE!
Forget sh’ma?
Don’t want to get in the middle of this, but even Paul notes that Israel is not permanently removed from God and as far as the new covenant is concerned, NONE of those provisions are currently in place. We are all waiting for it. The bill of divorce stuff in Romans is a complicated rabbinic argument. See Mark Nanos.
Something also to consider here. It wasn’t “the covenant” that was at fault, Hebrews says that, “finding fault with THEM”….and it goes on, continuing to quote, “I will write my laws on their minds”…..So, the terms of the covenant are the same and God as the husband can’t die, so who has to die? As Daniel wrote above, “4 SO THAT, MY BRETHERN, YE ALSO WERE MADE DEAD TO THE LAW THROUGH THE BODY OF THE CHRIST, FOR YOUR BECOMING ANOTHER’S, WHO OUT OF THE DEAD WAS RAISED UP, THAT WE MIGHT BEAR FRUIT TO GOD;” Is it the husband, or the wife (bride) that dies? God’s after a new people, not a new law. “you must be born anew”
Yes, Jerry! And I doubt that Yeshua or his disciples handed out tracts on the ‘four spiritual laws’ or the sinner’s prayer!
Haha. Yah. I can see it now. Hilarious! And how can we ask Jesus in our hearts? He’s a man and He has a body. That would really hurt. (I know. Dumb joke.)
Jer. 31:32 “For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Isra’el after those days,” says Adonai: “I will put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts” (CJB)
Torah = Word which became flesh = Jesus.
Mat. 19:23 Yeshua looked at them and said, “Humanly, this is impossible; but with God everything is possible”……even writing Jesus / Torah on our hearts or inviting God to do it.
It was a joke, with grains of truth. Of course, figuratively, Yeshua can be in our hearts, and we can also be seated with him in heavenly places, through true teshuvah, a working faith, and the indwelling of the Ruach HaKodesh. But The Four Spiritual Laws is an overly simplified message of salvation through faith in Messiah. It’s “ticket punching” salvation. Salvation merely through an inner faith and confession with your mouth – “Just ask Jesus in your heart by faith and you’ll be saved”, and if you do it in front of a pastor and a congregation at the altar of a church, your salvation will be even more certain. And if you can remember the exact date, then you really have a powerful proof and testimony.
I think God intended for it (salvation) to be simple. People, on the other hand, like to over-complicate things.
Yes. That can be true. Though the comment was not, “The Four Spiritual Laws is not complicated enough message”. It was that it is “overly simplified”. Like the one lifelong step that the The Four Spiritual Laws does not mention is – “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. The process of salvation is not over until it’s over. And I think, actually, if we do work out our salvation in fear and trembling, the process of growing in our salvation will still be everlasting. And though salvation may be simple, it is not easy.
Yes, our part is to work OUT (bring out) our own salvation because it’s God who works IN. The verses before that mention that Christ being of Elohim did not regard being equal with God but emptied himself and was obedient to the Father. The same way we must humble (empty ourselves from self works and wills) and bring out that which God works in us with awe-inspired reverence (I just like that version better then “with fear and trembling” since, as I recall, the “fearful and unbelieving” lead the group that goes to the lake of fire in Rev 21). In awe – because the creator of the cosmos lives in us, in reverence – because it’s his cosmos, his works, his will. If my own salvation depended on my works – I wouldn’t need a Savior!
Hi John, my problem is that the Father never said “I will send my son” or for that matter “my messiah ” to die for the forgiveness of sins.. Torah and Tanach say many things , but not about sacrificing a human person for the rebellion of the sons of Israel. If I have missed this pont, please show me..I am willing to learn!! love d
Hi Dennis, thanks for your comment. However I don’t have the answers either ?. I’m a seeker like you. I think I’ll have to go back and read Skip’s Crossword Puzzles book again…
The way I read Crossword Puzzles, that sacrifice was done by a Lamb long ago. Forgiveness, according to Skip’s exegesis, was already a done deal so they didn’t have to address it. If he has changed that analysis, I would be interested to know, too.
The Tanach talks about blood washing sin, but whose blood, and when? These may all just be Greek questions, however, in which we are probably (likely?) missing what we should be asking instead. May we be granted the right questions!
Elie Weisel once wrote: “Could it be … that questions are more important than answers? … After all, we have learned from history that people are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them”.
I’m beginning to think that the bane of Greek thinking is that every question has a correct answer and it MUST be answered or we have somehow missed the mark. To capture the essence of innocence of a little child who is not afraid of asking “why” as often as possible is not in the answer he or she recieves, but in their trust that awe and wonder will never be eroded or depleted by their questions.
What about Isaiah 53:5-6?
Yes!!!!! ?
Most, if not all, Rabinnic teaching identify the ‘suffering servant’ as the nation of Israel, collectively. Reading the surrounding verses of Isaiah 53 clearly identify the servant as Israel. It seems Evangelical Christianity has surgically crafted select verses to make the identification as Yeshua. While haMassiach is clearly, as son of Joseph/David, included in Israel, the Isaiah 53 verse under Pardes seems to require Israel being the specific servant. Its not until one comes to a drash that the verse opens up to include haMassiach, Yeshua, as being included in the collective ‘servant’ designation, even though non-messianic Rabbi’s don’t even recognize Yeshua as THE messiah. They would refer to the coming messiah in that collective servant identification.
My two cents as I’ve deciphered the question. (At this moment in time, anyway!) 🙂
In summary, it seems Christianity has used these verses as ‘proof text’ to fit their narrative of idolizing Jesus rather than the message of the kingdom he alluded to.
Is the kingdom of God limited to a message? To words?
What about the works?
Jesus is the Word.
He, Himself, is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
He is the fulfillment of, in living DNA, every thought and intent of God’s heart and mind.
He spoke the world into existence with wisdom.
It is human propensity to build the tombs of the prophets. Even though the world is cluttered with them, even as Jesus is made a celebrity and dressed according to the latest cultural cutting-edges, even though all hell break loose around me and none of my senses function, this Jesus, Who called me out of this dark world with many signs and wonders, has got me.
The Message is The Word. That we lift Him up is a no-brainer; where else will we find the words of Life? That we get carried away is our human nature. That’s why we stay close to Him.
Wow, well said.
Once I learned the Kingdom message I was heartbroken that I missed what Yeshua was actually preaching. It’s like the church became so enamored with Yeshua and lifting Him up it didn’t listen to a word He was actually saying. I think the church missed it because it dismissed the Torah. The nation of Israel was to demonstrate Kingdom living on Earth had they fully obeyed the Torah as YHVH’s instructed. With the church only concentrating on the New Testament, the doorway( the entrance) to the kingdom became the message, not what Yeshua demonstrated how to live once you enter through the doorway. That message became escaping the world to go to heaven to be with Him. Salvation, forgiveness of Sins, the Blood, Born Again etc. all of this is is about ENTERING the Kingdom. Yeshua opening words of his Earthly ministry was ” Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is here! The Gospels shows us how Yeshua demonstrated Kingdom living here on Earth and the Apostles demonstrated Kingdom living in the books of Acts. I think with all the influence of idolatry from pagan religions the church wouldn’t know what to do without worshipping a central celebrity.
The message has always been the same . . . about finding and receiving
new life within you where the kingdom resides.
The message has been built on a Rock and guided by His Spirit.
No man can change or alter it. They can only try.
Fear not.
So, the million dollar question: what IS the kingdom of God? How does one attain citizenship in this kingdom? How does the shed blood of Messiah relate to this kingdom? How does the message of the kingdom differ from the manifestation of the kingdom?
Someone mentioned about “asking Jesus into your heart.” How is this materially different than saying, “the kingdom of God is within you”? Or the notion that the kingdom does not come with outward observance? Or Jesus saying “I am the bread of life”? Am I stuck in Platonism?
hopefully TODAY’s EDITION (January 25) gives you some of the answer.
Paul, I’ve come to understand that salvation starts with a clear cut instruction. Once received the words germinate in our mind or thought pattern. Once this is done we someone start acting out the initial instruction received. Some say by choice or decision. The OT authors hint in this direction, while the NT authors seem to lean towards implying God needs to call and change and our only choice is to permit this calling to manifest… This manifestation I think is what is referred to as word takes on flesh or God in our midst which is the sacrifice of our flesh example Yeshua on the cross us taking up our cross. This I understand as the coming or revelation of Yeshua which the world our own misunderstandings desperately need for us to experience peace righteousness and joy though this mindset of being set apart…