92 to 0 (Rewind)
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24 NASB
Believe– John uses the Greek “believe” in one form or another ninety-two times in his gospel. It is never once a noun. Pisteuo is a verb, a verb that implies action. In John’s case, there is no pistis (faith) in the good news. There is only pisteuo—doing something about the claims of Yeshua. John’s idea of believing is not mental assent, reciting a creed or saying the sinner’s prayer. John’s idea is a change of life including the choices, rituals, behaviors and goals of the follower of the Messiah. And it begins here, with the action accompanying recognizing that Yeshua is the Messiah. The reason these Pharisees are going to die in their sins is not because they don’t believe in the Messiah. It is because they refuse to alter the course of their lives to live in accordance with Yeshua, the Messiah. They refuse to accept his authority as delegated by God. They will not adopt him as their leader and so they will not follow in his footsteps. Therefore, they will die in their sins.
John’s use of pisteuo makes it absolutely clear that acknowledging Yeshua as the Messiah means trusting him for direction, practice and deliverance. This is considerably more than simply asking for forgiveness. For John, pisteuo means betting my life on the directions given to me by the Jewish Messiah. It means doing what he says.
The Pharisees Yeshua addressed did not trust. They did not change their stripes. Yeshua faults them for their obstinacy. Of course, we agree. Perhaps too quickly. Look again at Yeshua’s remark. “Unless you believe that I am he.” What does this mean? It means that you and I must act on the fact that Yeshua is the one, the one and only Messiah of the Jews. It means that we are required to conform to the image of this divinely appointed ruler of the earth, the head of the Kingdom that will never end. It means that we do not follow “Jesus,” the universal savior of the Church, someone without ethnic heritage. It means that we put our trust in this Jewish man, sent from God to the lost sheep of Israel. For us, it’s not “all about Jesus.” It’s about a first century Jew, born to a Jewish mother, adopted by a Jewish father, teaching Jewish disciples in a Jewish context about returning to a compliant life under a Jewish prophet. It means that we are called to understand him in a Jewish context and to practice what he taught as if we too were first century Jewish followers.
There are a lot of Pharisees in the Church today. They do not believe that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah. They have converted him into the non-man, the universal man—an idea, not a person. An idea that satisfies their longing for justification without commitment to a particular way of life. The Church has a Roman Jesus, altered by deliberate syncretism so that he can appeal to everyone everywhere. “Jesus” is the perfect fit for a God who is not a person but rather an essence. “Jesus” is the essenceof forgiveness without the messiness of Jewish heritage. “Jesus” is the nobody-man. And according to his words, if you want him to be anything but the Jewish Messiah, you too will die in your sins.
Topical Index: Messiah, pisteuo, believe, faith, John 8:24
RUTH STUDY
I will be teaching a week-long study of Ruth, one chapter every evening from December 11 to 14, in Sarasota and then teaching at Beth Messiah in Sarasota, FL, on Shabbat. You are welcome to join but you MUST notify Maddie Basham BEFORE HAND. There is a fee for these sessions.
You can contact Maddie at davidandmaddie@aol.com
In the beginning was the Word. How ironic that eternal life hinges on the reality of that one word “believe.”
Thank you Teresa, I am not a scholar, and I do not pretend to be one. Just knowing there are so much to understand about language and culture. I remember first being taught about understanding the Bible period was to understand verbs. Current and active, always current and active. It is a mind blower. Up until recently period after walking with the Lord for several hmm, years, the understanding of Mercy. Only merci allows forgiveness to operate. Changes my stance and my delivery of messages. God is so good, Mercy holding back the Judgment that we do deserve, as I understand it. I was doomed for death. But he gave me life and that life abundantly Hallelujah that what I have I am learning to give away with a different perspective. Shalom
Has anyone gotten ahold of the book alignment, it is a free download Kama… By Asher.Intrader I would like a few of it from someone. Kid takes a prophetic stance. But I think it’s good. Thanks
I think it was published back in 2000 10 or 11 maybe even more recent. Thanks again. B. B.
I agree that there is so much to understand about the way that language and culture shape our understanding. I’m very grateful that the Spirit intercedes at a level that is too deep for words. Hallelujah indeed!
Warning: the following is my personal opinion.
Thank you, Skip. I believe syncretism is now reaching a fever pitch on this planet. There is a HIGHLY unified effort underway (checked out what the UN has been up to, lately?) to “make all voices one”; to agree on a universal god; to make the whole world into a single empire under the name of “tolerance” (which I think is the world’s current substitute for real love).
The “universal christ consciousness” is taught in New Age circles but can now also be found in your newest revised editions of the Presbyterian hymnals, for example, where you can also find hymns to the sun god(!) as well as vanilla, non-offensive accolades to most of the other planetary gods, too; who supposedly all ‘share’ “christ consciousness”. “Red and yellow, black and white” now apparently all can share in this new christ without budging a step. In the name of tolerance, we can all ‘come to christ’; hey, we all apparently already have! All that is left is to admit that (“only believe”?) and join hands while we sing Kumbaya. Take THAT, Jewish Messiah! What an end run around!
Make no mistake: Yeshua and Torah are one; so Torah is now in the gun sights, too. Substitutes (look-a-likes) for all the requisites of real love (which is FREEDOM: not “tolerance”, for the record!) have now already been written or are being written for not only the laws of (all) land(s), but also of communities of faith (thanks again, helpful UN, et al!) because the brief, historic, local separation of church and state is now pretty much an ancient artifact of the past, even in this country. Only the front wall remains in place even here, which will be soon pulled down, too, I am afraid. (All voices must be one, after all, but only officially accepted voices for “freedom” are allowed, as defined by “tolerance”, of course.)
The Jewish Torah? We now have a better one (just go ask the UN for your copy of their revised Ten Commands today!) to match the universal christ. Do we understand what this means for those who wish to obey YHVH? Skip has issued a call to action. Perhaps it could be time – high time – to take a good long look at just who we are following (obeying). Almost right is still wholly wrong, after all, when it comes to obedience. Thank you for this one, Skip.
The times they are a changing. The lyrics
“Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight”
has now become
“Bark and bellow, sack and fight, we are worthy in our sight.”
This is good, Michael. A little humor helps a serious discussion.
Agree, I also think that the word Tolerance has been confused with diversity.
If it’s about Tolerance, it should be a two way highway (but it is not).
If it is about diversity, it is good as long the new comers respect and abide to the law of the land.(that’s just me talking as an immigrant 🙂 )
WHEN BELIEF BLOSSOMS INTO BELIEVING . . .
Our life’s course alter-er is the Holy Spirit. The awakening
of us all to the Spirit’s presence within, launches our intellectual belief
into a “living” belief of loving others as God indeed loves us.
It’s a life changer that is incomparable to any other source or means.
Because it’s a change brought on by God Himself — along with our
total and complete submission to Him. “So if the Son sets you free,
you will be free indeed.” Jn 8:36
Whoever you were before the Spirit’s presence is a mere shadow of who
you become with the life force within you of the Comforter, Counselor,
Teacher and Guide. Yeshua promised He would come: “But when he,
the Spirit, comes, he will guide you into all truth.” Jn 16:13
The trigger? Yeshua’s death and resurrection. This world-changing divine event
transformed the passive belief that “I am He”, by empowering true believers to LIVE
the same spiritual life Yeshua lived and believed in.
The proof is in the pudding.
So true. Skip, many people in the churches would run you out with pitch forks if you stated that.
Yesterday I went to a local church I have been attending off and on for a while. For me praise music is one way to worship YHVH or Yehovah and Yeshua. But the songs we sing use God and Jesus or Lord. I don’t really understand why the church doesn’t think it is not important to use the actual names. Or why any believer would not find that important. But I know for me as probably for many believers, you are taught not to question the “church”. I know there is a debate about how to pronounce YHVH. I believe that however you pronounce the name, just at least attempt it. And why in the world we don’t say Yeshua? That is baffling to me. Growing up in the 60s’ and 70s’ we had limited information. But now you can learn to some degree these things for free online using Blue Letter Bible or any other multitude of resources.
Will these teachings on Ruth be for sale on DVD?
The Ruth study is already on the web site. Of course, that one was done a few years ago and the next one will be updated. I might record it. Haven’t decided yet.
Thank you!
Before I read your Word for the day I was getting a word from the Holy Spirit in regards to Jesus and Peter walking on the water. Peter activated his faith by movement! It wasn’t enough to have a hallelujah breakdown type prayer meeting without obedience. These spiritual massages are wonderful, and we all like them but they don’t really cause us to grow. Activating our faith (doing) in what God has spoken releases a dynamic for growth and experiencing Christ. We all do it. We get excited about something and proclaim it, but to actually know it, obedience is required. Like most things we don’t actually know them until we do them and experience them. This takes on a different look because engagement is required in order to move deeper into God and experience more of who He is! I guess it moves us from our senses, to who he actually is ! “ what does the Lord require of you…but to DO…”. It’s in the eating that we experience him ! Do I like it?! Not really, because I know what this obedience means for me. God is always calling us out ! I’m sort of talking in riddles, for which I apologize.
I understand that the church is disconnected from the Jewish Messiah. My point was that even just getting the names right doesn’t seem to matter to most believers in the church. Skip, I think your ability to reveal to others what YHVH is saying and what He wants us to do is highly important. I do find the Scriptures to be difficult to understand, and I think that may be true for most people who want to follow Yeshua. I am not sure you understand yourself the importance of that or how much more you do understand than many. Of course you are not the only one. 🙂 You, Laurita and a few others have an intellectual grasp that I believe the average believer does not.
I do have a question, I am trying to reconcile being grafted in to Israel as opposed to being one of Abraham’s children. It is not an issue of following Torah. Adam and Havvah were the first priests. Are we as Gentile believers part of Israel, or part of Abraham’s family. To me there is a difference. Galatians 3:7 and Romans 16:16-17 say we are part of Abraham’s family. Doesn’t this suggest that YHVH is the Elohim of all those believers and (nations) that believe in the Messiah? So in that sense He would be a universal God? Aren’t the verses on being grafted in an analogy? We are not actually Israelites? Don’t we represent the Gentile nations as priests to other Gentile nations? In some sense. Not sure I worded this correctly but hope anyone interested in responding understands.
Marsha,
I’m late but interested in responding. You say there is a difference between being part of Israel, and, Abraham’s family. (Note, Ro 11 not 16) I agree and let me give you some thoughts to consider.
God promised Abraham that he was to be the father of many nations and countless millions of people. He had children by three women, Hagar, Sarah and Keturah through whom we read that they did deliver such descendants but nevertheless, God’s promise concerned only ONE SEED.
Gal 3:16 (MKJV) And to Abraham and to his Seed the promises were spoken. It does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, “And to your Seed,” which is Christ.
This is a good “proof text” for replacement theology. Not only is it suggested that Israel has been replaced by Jesus but, in fact, the promises were never really made to Israel at all, but only to Jesus Who is the single promised Seed. (Note the Modern KJV even capitalizes Seed for us to make sure we understand.) And it is through Jesus that everyone else in the world can be a child of the promise.
However, this is not consistent with the O.T. and I disagree. The point Paul was making in Galatians was that, although Abraham had many children and grandchildren, it was only through one of them that the promise was given. And reading through Genesis it should be obvious that that one seed and child is Jacob/Israel who became millions.
How then do I counter the blunt statement of Gal 3:16 that says, the one seed “which is Christ”? Once again, Christ is capitalized for us but it should not ALWAYS be such – “christ” at its basis simply means “anointed”. Not only was the Messiah, and kings, priests and prophets officially anointed but in several verses God called all of Israel His anointed.
So although there are millions of varied genetic descendants of Abraham it would seem there is only one group of them given the earthly promises which are inherited only by them.
It was Romans 4:16-17, not Romans 16 or Romans 11 that I was referencing. As for the seed not being Yeshua, that is a paradigm step I haven’t taken. And in reference to nations, it seems you are saying other nations won’t be blessed unless they become “Israel”.
No, I am not saying, other nations won’t be blessed, but only that there is no covenant with promises such as were promised to Jacob/Israel. Nevertheless, Abraham had sons through Keturah for instance, but more notably, the angel of the Lord told Hagar that He would greatly multiply her offspring so that they could not be counted and that Ishmael would be the father of twelve princes and a great nation, “BUT My covenant I will establish with Isaac”. (Gen 17:20-21).
We also know that many nations will be blessed through Abraham . . .
Gen 17:3 Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, 4 “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you will be the father of a multitude of nations . . . 7 “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants . . .
This sounds plain to me that there is a multitude of nations within the covenant but, as they cannot come from children of the flesh, they must come from the children of the covenant, namely, Isaac/Jacob.
So, to answer your question, it seems many nations are blessed, and even many nations are blessed through the covenant, but the mystery is, who are these covenant nations? Perhaps Paul is trying to tell us something when he says in writing to the people called Ephesians,
Eph 3:6 Young’s literal, “that the nations be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in the Christ, [not Jesus the Christ but the anointed of Israel] through the good news . . .”
In the first four chapters of Ephesians, Paul is constantly going back and forth between the pronouns, you, and, us. At 2:19 he says, “you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the SAINTS”. [Israel] He was.trying to explain a mystery that has been hidden for the ages. (3:9)
While I won’t state I have a definitive answer for you, I can provide some fodder. In the ‘hall of faith’ chapter, Hebrews 11, we find Rahab the harlot, a gentile. Obviously, she—along with the others noted—predate Yeshua’s earthly existence. And I think we can say she was considered of Abraham’s family.
As to the issue of being ‘grafted in’, note the following. In Romans 9:4 (in the plural) and 11:1 (singular) is the term Israēlitēs, Israelite. This word is only used 7 more times in the NT (John 1:47; Acts 2:22; 3:12; 5:35; 13:16; 21:28; 2 Corinthians 11:22). The term Israēl is found 66 times in the NT; however, in the book of Romans it is only found within chapters 9 through 11: 9:6 (twice); 9:27 (twice); 9:31; 10:19; 10:21; 11:2; 11:7; 11:25; and 11:26.
Key to your answer is Romans 9:8, which uses the term sperma—found at the very end of the verse—for Abraham’s seed. This term is also found in 9:29 (KJV: “Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed”)
In 9:24, Paul juxtaposes Ioudaios, Jews/Judeans, with ethnos, gentiles. However, in 9:30 we find ethnos juxtaposed with Israēl (very beginning of 9:31). In 10:1 Paul uses the plural pronoun (“prayer to God for them”), which, to my mind, makes it a bit difficult to find the antecedent. Is it Israēl, even though it is a singular—a collective singular? Or is it Ioudaios, Jews/Judeans from 9:24? (Some translations substitute Israēlitēs for the plural pronoun, but that word was last used in 9:4—too far away.)
In 10:12 Ioudaios, Jew/Judean, and hEllēn, Greek, are juxtaposed—the only time “Greek” is used in these chapters.
Romans 11:1 demands special mention: gar egō ’Israēlitēs eimi, ek spermatos Abraam, phylēs Beniamin, “For I am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, tribe of Benjamin.”
Throughout Romans 11:11 to 11:13 Paul uses ethnos, gentiles, over against the plural pronoun (used through to 11:15). With this additional evidence, it seems that the plural pronoun is substituting for the collective singular Israēl from 11:7 (or “his people” from 11:1).
Now, what to do with the technical data just presented…
Craig, thank you for the technical fodder, I appreciate all the time you take preparing it. Now indeed, what to do with it? Well let me take a stab.
First, let me consider Able instead of Rahab as an example of faithfulness and righteousness. (I do this because Rahab is not specifically stated to be a Gentile, – her family could have moved away from Goshen before the Israelites were enslaved, – which might also help explain some of the details of the story). But Able was certainly not of Abraham’s family and I don’t think he needs to be considered part of Abraham’s family as some sort of “spiritual” descendant in order to be faithful and righteous.
But one does need to be a descendant of Abraham to be included in his covenant (otherwise, the pointed distinctions between Jacob and the others are meaningless). I am only trying to understand who ALL of the specific peoples are, who are part of God’s covenant with Abraham. Mainstream Christians think anyone in the world can become a descendant of Jacob/Israel but as stated in my response to Marsha (above), I have shown why I think not.
With regard to your verses including, “Israelite”, and, “Israel”, I don’t think there is too much we would disagree over. I think “Israelite” and “Israel” are being used in the sense of genetic descendants of Jacob/Israel with whom God made His covenants. And yet, having said that, because it is possible that someone might not understand that, Paul makes the strange statement that,
Rom 9:6 . . . for not all those of Israel are Israel;
I think he is trying to get across the point that inhabitants of Israel, the landmass, and Israel, the descendants of Jacob, are not necessarily one and the same. The landmass had been infiltrated by all sorts of other peoples such as people descended from Esau, Moab, Ammon, Canaan etc. And so, this is where the term, “Jews” comes in. The Hebrew word, according to Strong, would be better translated, “Judean”, simply meaning an inhabitant of the country of Judea. They might be descended from Jacob but they could also be any of the others. With this understanding, (true) Israelites are actually a subgroup of the Judeans, which is the other way around from our normal way of thinking. (Judah normally being a subgroup of the twelve brothers.)
(continuing) Rom 9:7 nor because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. But, “In Isaac shall your Seed be called.” 8 That is, not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed [sperma].
The illegitimate High Priest may well have been of “a” seed of Abraham, e.g. through Esau, (as suggested by Josephus I think) Jacob’s brother, but he was not of the lineage of Jacob and so, was not part of the single seed of promise.
I think, regarding to whom Paul is referring to with the pronoun “them” in Ro 10:1; the previous 3 uses of, them/they, are referring to Israel in verse 31. In the context of that chapter 9, Paul is concerned with Israelites living amongst the Judeans, and noting that not all Judeans are Israelites.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference both of Jew and of Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call on Him.
I believe Ro 10:12 is referring to believing Israelites who call on the same Lord. It is merely stating that it doesn’t matter whether they are an inhabitant of Judah or an inhabitant anywhere in the Hellenic cultures around the Mediterranean.
Rom 11:1 I say then, Did not God put away His people? Let it not be said! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
This goes straight to my point of Jesus not being the, only and singular, seed of Abraham. Paul is plainly claiming to be one of, and, amongst that singular seed [spermatos] of Abraham, not via belief in Jesus but genetically through the (entire) tribe of Benjamin.
I am no bible expert such as some on this site but IMHO Paul saying that he is a Benjaminite is the same as any Judean saying they are Israelites. They are both the only tribes that were not “lost”, unrighteous. The northern tribes cannot say the same. When Yeshua said to Peter, “feed my lambs” three times he was referring to the lost Israelite tribes of the north and the diaspora elsewhere such as Ephesus, Corinth and beyond such as Galacia, Babylon and Rome. Yeshua taught in Galilee of the north (maybe only) for that reason too. The Judeans (and Benjaminites) had the temple for sacrifices, advanced scholarship and worship etc. and the others didn’t.
Gentiles have always had access to God (true worship) only via the Israelites and could and were grafted in all the time but that is completely different than Christians replacing the righteous Israelites, Judeans (and those of any other tribe too) as the chosen people when it became convenient for them to do so. You can’t be grafted into separation or nothingness (an idea), only into the living perfect Torah Yeshua and all the true holydays such as Pesach, Yom Kippur, Shavuot etc.
I thank everyone who shared some thoughts. I tried to follow along with the gist of what was being said. After reading a few comments last night, I listened to a pastor who was talking about this very topic. Not sure what to make of that. But he did say that after the stoning of Stephen, the church came in and Israel was put in a state of waiting, NOT that Israel had been replaced. He mentioned that the Ethiopian man in Acts 8 who believed and was baptized was from the line of Ham, Saul who was believed next was from the line of Shem and Cornelius in Acts 10 was from Japheth. The sons of Noah. So they would fall outside of the covenant in terms of nations. He also said something I found very fascinating. When Stephen was speaking before the Sanhedrin, his face shown just as Moses face shown at the giving of the law. When they were stoning Stephen, he looked and saw God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; He said if the Jews had listened and believed that Jesus would have come back then and the Kingdom would have been ushered in.
As how I read your comment Marsha, your pastor “knows” the mind of God. He said ‘if the Jews had listened and believed that Jesus would have come back …. and the Kingdom would have been ushered in.” REALLY?
It also betrays his paradigm. Hmmm. Stephen was a Jew, not a gentile and certainly not a “Christian”, the same as Paul and the other Jewish messianic Torah living disciples and some thousands of other Jews according to the bible. I think you might want to ask your pastor a few pointed questions.
More and more I become less interested. The three that came to believe in the Messiah were from Noah’s three sons representing all people. No offense meant to you or anyone else.
It appears that you have decided the Bible is really one big allegory. This exegetical approach was popular in Christian circles for hundreds of years until historical and cultural scholarship proved it’s inadequacy as a general method. Nevertheless, in some circles, both Jewish ad Christian, it continues to be used in order to avoid further theological difficulties. In the end, you may discover that is just doesn’t allow you to deal with the rest of investigation but, instead, forces you to keep denying or ignoring other approaches.
I think what I am dealing with is that I am in some sense out of my league here. But to me why that may be is… if you take a text where we are told there is no longer Jew or Gentile, male or female. We know that yes there are still male/female/ and Jew/Gentile. But a straightforward reading to me seems to say there aren’t any distinctions that separate us from a relationship with God now. There are lots of questions I would like to ask. However this is not really the place where I can get these answers. It is not a question of not wanting to follow Torah. But worrying about what to believe and trying to figure it out has in many ways taken some of the joy out of my faith. Before a true connection with God, I would have never been interested in even attempting to determine these things. I think it is the biggest reason why people outside of faith are turned off by “religion”. And I find myself now coming back to that place.
When you were a child, life seemed simple. Enjoyment was everywhere. Then you grew up and some of that joy disappeared because now you had responsibilities. You were expected to think things through. Isn’t faith like this? Yes, it’s great to have the joy of naive belief, but is that what is expected of you–to just stay in the Garden not dealing with anything because “some one else will take care of it”? Perhaps growing in the faith is much more painful than our Pollyanna wishes to stay in the Garden.
As you have said, not everyone can go to Oxford or any other Ivy League school for that matter. I think I am open to exploring the exegesis of a text. I am open to a paradigm shift but I have to be able to understand it. And as someone who just recently got back in the Garden, it wasn’t quite long enough for me. Reading the Bible doesn’t always have to be an academic exercise. I have learned quite a bit for me but it has caused not just cognitive dissonance but emotional and mental. It is hard to remember all of it. And I read some of this stuff but it is not easy. I read a book by Gager recently. He quoted another scholar as saying the whole text would have to be questioned. If that is true then why don’t some scholars come up with a translation reflecting these wrong interpretations. You have had over fifty years to explore the text. I have had three. And my Garden experience only lasted nine months.
Okay. Point taken. BUT, you and I were never intended to stay in the Garden – or return to it for that matter. And paradigm shifts usually do NOT involved cognitive understanding BEFORE they occur. And reading the Bible SHOULD create cognitive dissonance, emotional turmoil and mental stress. If it doesn’t, then there’s a good chance you are only reading what you want it to say, not what it actually says. And, yes, from SOME academic points of view we would have to rethink the whole book, but that’s okay too. Rather have the truth than stay cocooned in fiction. And finally, welcome aboard. There are no easy exits once you get on this journey. Sorry, but that’s the way it goes.
Marsha, I have been where you are. Don’t be discouraged. Everyone on this web site has a different perspective on the bible but we are all here for the same reason, to learn how to think for ourselves instead of blindly accepting what we have been fed by someone else’s paradigm. This isn’t easy but it is worthwhile. Your relationship with God is unique. There is no other like it. Believe me. Take your time and keep your mind open. In due course you will at least be able to say, I understand where I am and why. Even if you don’t you will at least be able to say you gave it your best shot. What else can you ask for?
Thanks, George. I appreciate the encouragement.
George, he was referencing the leaders. He says as does my NIV translation that there were Jewish believers. But I can see how you might see that as a variation of replacement theology if that was your point.
Marsha, I get the gist of what you are saying and I have been waiting patiently today to hear from the traditional Christian church believers in their defense of “solus Christus” Luther’s faith alone doctrine which IMHO is the opposing argument to this TW. So far nobody is saying anything. Interesting. I agree with you that the scriptures can be “difficult to understand” but that is directed by one’s paradigm very often, not what the scriptures may actually say.
Have Christians have adopted Jewish action verbs over Christian doctrine nouns? Hmmm. I don’t think so.
I love it when you take off the gloves Skip. Echo’s of the Katzian sensibilities suggest the quote; “the Truth is in us and we in it only to the degree we actually walk in it”. Need I say more, but then Katz is the Jewish Surname for the Sons of Arron.( more specifically Hebrew/ because “Jewish” more accurately denotes the Sons of Judah). Tribal technicalities aside this is a high priestly sentiment you share today my brother, none of that self serving Pharisaical spirit. The atmosphere of the Holy Place hangs about your words when your in this zone. Need I remind readers the Holy Place was in Israel?
Wonderfully said Skip!!
It seems to me that a level of immersion can greatly help with the deep changes that need to happen in us who are children of the nations. Again I use this opportunity to share aspects of what imersion did for me.
My awareness of a Jewish Messiah, speaking to a Jewish audience began with my tenure in the Land which started in 1986. To this day, the awareness of the ‘Jewish difference’, has positively influenced my life and walk. There is definitely a difference between the Jew and the ‘Gentile’, and I came to appreciate it by living for some years in the Land. And why should that not be so? How could the Holy One’s ‘investment’ in a people over several millennials not produce tangible differential results?!
Another awareness I came into was the holiness of the ‘God of the Old Testament’ (as I knew Him then). He had given teachings and instructions about what was right in HIS sight and what was appropriate for HIS people!! Living among them, though a people of several generations later, gave me my first experience of what it was like for His words to be taken seriously. The Jewish celebration of the Festivals in the Land, the dancing in the streets for example are forever etched in my consciousness! But so too are my experience of HOW they handle the crisis war brings. How can a nation of such affectionate people also be such an outstanding army without becoming brutish unless the words of their Elohim is alive in their midst?
In the Land I also found the ‘Jewish God’ was revered in holy awe by those who esteemed Him. It was quite different from what was my experience of ‘God’ in ‘Christian’ lands. It caused me to become deeply attracted to this Holy One of Israel, who had already become my Father (thanks to Yeshua)!
I also came to realize that His ‘red letter bible’ was the Torah, wherein HE HIMSELF spoke to Moshe. Besides, being the Father of Yeshua, His words deserved not just equal but more keen and deliberate attention than those of His Son! And Who other than Yeshua was the best exponent?
Cementing my understanding even more was the astounding realization that Yeshua was the Living Torah, and He had come to correct the falsified ways His Father’s words were handled and taught!! If He had to do so in the place where Torah was esteemed, is there any hope for a Church System which has REPLACED the Father’s words with it’s own Greco-Roman liturgical constitution?!!!
But oh, the wonder of it all! The Son, revealing the Father, expounding on His Father’s Word and doing His Father’s works! What could be more meaningful, more delightful and more satisfying to the Father’s heart?! Are we surprised that the Son has been given a name above all names?!
And so for me life became a walk with Yeshua Who rightly divides to His followers (to this day!) the truth of His Father’s words and that by way of the Spirit of Truth given by/through Him. He raised up and left behind capable men through whom His legacy could reach to the ends of the earth.
Thank you Skip for the part you are playing.
Oh, the wisdom of this Holy Elohim whom we serve in the Spirit of His Son! He never can be out-manuevered (speaking as a human), despite centuries of futile attempts to do so. Causing every evil plan to praise Him, this was supremely expressed in the crucifixion!
What an awesome Elohim we from the nations, who once served other gods, have come to know! His name is forever praised. Baruch HaShem!!!
Beautifully expressed from a heart after His own heart. Thank you so much for sharing….
Thanks Mark. You are welcome.
In both 8:24 and 8:28 are the words “I A/am” (egō eimi), with no predicate following. The NASB supplies “He”, but that’s not in the Greek. The current NIV also adds “He”, but my NIV 1984 adds “˻the one I claim to be˼”. Is this lack of a specific predicate meant to be a dual reference—one implicitly to the Divine Name (which went over the Pharisees’ heads), the other to the claims He just made about Himself and His relationship to the Father? I think it is. Certainly, the writer could have added a predicate—either a demonstrative pronoun or verbiage repeating some of his earlier statements, such as “…the light of the world”.
Craig… what about the blind man who declared ego eimi in front of the rulers. Or Peter who also said the same thing in Acts?
There is no doubt egō eimi can and is used in the NT (and wider Greek of the time) without the predicate–as we sometimes do in English. It is for this reason that I did not absolutely assert that “I AM” was intended here. However, in light of the specific context of Jesus’ words in John 8 regarding the validity of His testimony (see esp. 8:14-18) in conjunction with the presence of egō eimi twice in quick succession, this seems a not-unreasonable stance. The writer of this Gospel is quite fond of using double meaning–but this doesn’t mean that every single occurrence of particular verbiage must conform to this. As with anything, context must determine interpretation.
If He “came to show us the Father”, Craig, He sure did a good job! My question is, if everything we see when we see Him IS the Father (like He says), then, if the duck quacks like a duck and walks like a duck… If “God” is a verb, and not a noun, then we are talking about an action, and not a thing, are we not? You cannot have more than one ‘thing’, or, noun, for it to be ‘itself’, but every action I know of can be perfectly reproduced (not that they are always, though), but IF THEY ARE, they can be the identically same action, and so therefore we describe them as one action. My question then becomes, could someone explain to me just how can you ‘count’ identical, SIMULTANEOUSLY CONTINUOUS actions? So far, I have been failing.
Perhaps God’s math is not always our math?
That’s our only hope!