Church and Synagogue
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: 1 Corinthians 1:2 NASB
Church – Slow down! Take your time reading each word of this verse, asking yourself what these words would have meant to the assembly in Corinth. Notice a few remarkable connections.
1. Paul does not address the assembly as “the church of Jesus Christ.” Do you find this startling? Wouldn’t you expect Paul to speak about the church of Jesus if his message were anything like the Christian message we hear today? No, Paul addresses the assembly in Corinth with terms that had immediate meaning to these people. They were not an assembly focused on Jesus. They were the qehelah (or synagogue) in Corinth, an assembly that retained traditions that reached back to Sinai. This assembly was God’s assembly. Yeshua operates within God’s assembly. Since we know that Paul taught in the synagogue in Corinth, his address to these believers cements their continued connection the Israel. Same God. Same people.
2. Did you notice the phrase “saints by calling”? This is nothing more than an explication of the inherent meaning in the Hebrew term qehelah. Qahal is “to call out for a purpose.” The assembly that results from answering this call is the qehelah. It isn’t an accidental gathering. It is called for a specific reason. Since Paul connects that calling with “the assembly of God,” we are confident that the purpose expressed at Sinai is the same purpose assigned to this Corinthian assembly. Continuity in calling means continuity in purpose.
3. “Call upon the name” is a technical phrase that first appears in the fourth chapter of Genesis. In the ancient Semitic world, this phrase means “submitting to the name of the one called as the lord and master of life.” In other words, it is a well-known Hebraic expression that implies ownership. The one called upon owns the one calling. Paul asserts that Yeshua is Lord. He uses an ancient Hebrew expression, converted to Greek, to communicate this idea. Obviously, Paul intended his audience to make this connection since he reiterates it in the next phrase. But this implies that these people understood the ownership principle of the Tanakh. They understood that the Lordship of Yeshua operated within the assembly called by God. The mystery of Daniel 7 jumps from the page here.
4. “Their Lord and ours” demands that we supply the reference for the pronoun. Who are the “their” Paul refers to? He answers, “all who in every place call upon the name.” And who would that be? Certainly in the time Paul wrote this letter the vast majority of those who called upon the name Yeshua HaMashiach were Jews, not “Christians.” In fact, none of those who called on the name would have considered themselves Christians. To suggest that these believers were “Christians” is to import an anachronism (a label that belongs to a later time period). They were followers of the Way, a sect of Judaism.
Very little reflection is required to notice that these opening remarks often seem to be in conflict with the nature of the Church today. How did all that happen?
Marianne Dacy offers the following: “ . . . Christianity, in order to define itself, closed its ranks to Jewish practices, the process of separation being one of gradual dejudaisation. Thus, in order to be Christian, one was obligated to reject Jewish law and Jewish practices.”[1]
“Certainly, those Christians who continued to hold on to Jewish ritual laws such as circumcision, food laws and other practices not assumed by the church, were ostracised and eventually driven out from orthodox Christianity. The new religion, (for that is what Christianity became), soon would not long tolerate members who professed to be Christian, yet, retained Jewish practices. The Jewish-Christians also came under gnostic influences and were considered to have embraced beliefs that were unacceptable to the developing mainstream church. Eventually the Jewish-Christians disappeared as a movement. The isolating of the Jewish-Christians was part of the process of the separation of the church with Judaism.”[2]
The bottom line is this: we must know the history of our faith! Few of us actually know how our faith developed. We don’t know what social, political and religious pressures caused theological transformations. We know only what our contemporary churches tell us. But that leaves so many gaps that it becomes difficult to see how we can still be grafted into the commonwealth of Israel and serve the same God who revealed Himself at Sinai.
Topical Index: church, calling, ekklesia, qehelah, 1 Corinthians 1:2
“The bottom line is this: we must know the history of our faith! Few of us actually know how our faith developed. We don’t know what social, political and religious pressures caused theological transformations. We know only what our contemporary churches tell us. But that leaves so many gaps that it becomes difficult to see how we can still be grafted into the commonwealth of Israel and serve the same God who revealed Himself at Sinai.”
In the time since I learned the ‘history of my faith’ – over the last 20 or so years it has amazed me that as others observed me changing (as I became aware of how I had just accepted the history/doctrine/traditions as taught in the various churches I had belonged to since age 13 and needed to re-think, research and study exactly what I believed and how I lived) their words to me upon observing my ‘backing up’ and reassessing what I had been taught were mostly cynical and critical….oh ‘you have forgotten Jesus’ grace…. ‘ God has finished with the Jews’…..your legalistic and ‘I dont know anyone who walks like you are trying to, so how can you know your are right’ etc. My questions is ….Why do we seem to ‘prefer darkness to light’ and tradition to truth? Are we just lazy? Is what we know so hard to let go of or at least re-assess, question?
Why is that in most other areas of our lives (particularly careers and other fields of study) we are willing to do great research, learning and in depth study in a particular subject in order to get that degree or that job or that car etc., but when it comes to Yah’s word we just pick and choose and while we are doing it we are firmly entrenched in our deep seated traditions. So often our re assessing and searching is thorugh a set bias and we resist anything that may question that bias or ‘rock our boat’. When I ask those who question my walk why they dont wish to go back and review what they believe, often the answer is something like…I am saved by his Grace nothing else is superior to that, this is how I have always been etc. In any other field if we brought a different equasion – for example how to stablize a bridge without a sound engineering background of facts and thorough reserach we would be looked upon as very foolish and without proper knowledge. So it is no wonder that the Jews look at Christianity in the way they do…foolish and without proper knowledge.and wonder just what God we believe in?
I am now living in a very religious culture in Africa (Ethiopia) and I have observed and come to know many pious and religious people who genuinely believe they are correct in the way they worship God …..in their eyes their culture and traditions are ancient and deeply steeped in their church history, be they Orthodox, or otherwise. But interestingly there is a huge difference in their individual reactions to me when in conversations we have together the discussion inevitably brings up a certain question ‘Christine, what denomination are you and what do you believe about Jesus etc. You said God brought you to Ethiopia….why did you come etc?’ When I reply that I dont belong to any ‘religion’, dont go to church on Sunday and observe the Sabbath etc. there is not a condeming quizzical look, or judgement. Instead they imediately ask….why do you believe that, how do you understand the history of Christianity and ‘please, show me the scripture that says..this…or that. My point being….it seems in the west that many/some ‘Christians’ are content with what they believe, and what they have learned and are not often ready to be challenged (I am speaking in general terms here) but here in Ethiopia I have been amazed that these very traditional but deeply God fearing people (when you ask anyone here – young or old – how they are …they always reply ‘ fine thanks to God’ or when they are going to do something ‘ if God wills it) are open and hungry for truth about what it means to walk in the ancient paths, what Yah’s requirements are, and most specifically, why it is important to know what they are and do them. In other words many want to know the history as it is and not what has been taught and I have found that very heartening and in my experience different from many westerners attitudes which is more ‘I believe what I know’ rather than ‘I need to know more’.
So why am I writing all this……I found Skip’s W4D ‘Truth from the Inside’ very helpfull as it points out how we came to be where we are at in many Christian circles today. It is a good starting point to use with those who hold on to what they believe tenaciously and view those who have returned to the ancient paths (after realising that their ‘religion’ is contrary to what Yah has taught) as maybe having a valid point in questioning what is so deeply engrained in most of us. I personally believe that the transition that I went through is imperative for every believer if they want to live out obedicence to Yah. So I want to thank you Skip for writing about this in this way as I will use it to give to some of my new friends here who have been asking me about this very issue.
You hit a nerve! Where is the truth about history – many versions from Western and Eastern churches and current churches rarely go back to the early church followers after the New Testament era. How do we figure out how and where we worship today – where is the unity Jesus prayed for his followers. I’m toward the end of my earthly journey..time is short and going fast.
Marianne Dacy, “The Separation of Early Christianity from Judaism,” John Gager, “Reinventing Paul,” Pamela Eisenbaum, “Paul was not a Christian,” Becker and Reed, “The Ways that Never Parted.” Start with these.
>> They were not an assembly focused on Jesus <<
~ to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their LORD and ours: (1 Corinthians 1:2) NASB
not focused on Jesus? – did I missing something here? -calling on whose Name? -their LORD and ours? Oh yes- that's right! For He is LORD of all.
Dear Skip Moen
“They were followers of the Way, a sect of Judaism.” I have a little trouble with this. When you say sect I think Orthodox, Masorti, Reform. When I read “Way” I think Torah. For me that means authentic Judaism not a sect – so I understand Mashiach as the living Torah come down from heaven to bring to perfection the old Torah written on clay tablets (typology for the 613 commands) by writing them in our hearts. I just had a debate with someone on JPOST who insisted that the Torah forbids teaching the command of Leviticus 18:22, so for me “sect” means writing your own halacha and making it up as you go along. Personally the day I hear my rabbi teaching this at the shul I attend will be the last time I ever go there. For me Jesus taught what was real and authentic to correct human traditions that had corrupted Judaism. Masorti in the US have changed Mosaic Law and now embrace homosexuality as if Sodom and Gomorrah were bastions of purity and righteousness! To me that’s deviant and evil. Judaism seems to be losing its soul and that’s why Jesus is the truth of Judaism – not some mamby-pamby poskim trying to renegotiate the covenant.
I am sure that I agree with your assessment of the content of Yeshua’s teaching, but the words “sect of Judaism” are not mine. They are Paul’s. Of course, Paul would also claim that this so-called sect is in reality the truth. But in the first century, followers of the Way were considered by the rest of Judaism to be just one more sect (there were many). My point is that neither Paul nor the Jews considered followers of the Way as Christians. That nomenclature didn’t occur until much later. In the writings of the apostles, believers in Yeshua HaMashiach were simply considered one more variant of Judaism. If the followers of the Way had proclaimed abolition of Torah, they would never have been treated as a sect of Judaism. They would have been treated as PAGANS.
Dear Skip Moen,
Do you have a reference to a specific codex I could examine? It’s an interesting point but it seems an awkward reference to covenant theology:
i.e. the covenant with Noah is not a sect of marriage but rather its fruit … the covent with Abraham likewise … etc., I suspect an hebraic syntax is being used in the greek unless you know of a hebrew text.
Dear Christopher,
I’m not clear about your question. What is the interesting point that you need a reference for? Since the TW covers quite a few items associated with this Corinthians passage, and they are all in Greek of course, I guess I’m a little uncertain about your request for a Hebrew text. If you mean the reference to qehelah, then I would refer you to Bob Gorelik’s work on the “church,” but please clarify so I can offer what I am able.
Dear Skip,
Sorry if I was unclear. I meant if you were using a specific greek codex which one (there are what 60,000 some greek NT texts) or if you were using an established reference such as Strongs, et al? Also I was asking if you used a hebrew text because I am unaware of one and would be interested if this were the case. As for the why, I am particularly interested in the hellenistic Jews that were persecuted by Saul-Paul and others to make some greek-hebrew comparisons on the halachaic ruling noting how the temple language described believers. I was thinking that Paul may have been using the Jerusalem Temple terminology for hellenist Jewish believers in his text as a point of reference so I wanted to examine the structure and tense. Also I’m not certain what “TW” stands for – I’m thinking “The Word” as in your articles you write. Sorry, I’m still new to the site and haven’t figured everything out yet. Now days its all computers so I have to keep up even though I prefer written texts to say Logos biblical software. I’m being forced to go digital as I run out of shelf space though.
TW = Today’s Word. Sorry about that.
The passage referenced is from the Greek text of NA27, but I don’t think that’s what you are asking. Did you mean, “Where is the reference that connects ekklesia to qehelah?”
The veil of the Temple was torn in two- from top to bottom.
Who did this and why?
Dear Carl Roberts,
To understand typology you must investigate the reference in Exodus 25: 8-9
“8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. 9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.” (KJV)
The hebrew word for pattern is tabniyeth ( תַּבְנִית Strong’s 8403) and is used to image heavenly reality. The expression is “as above so below” and forms the basis for both kabbalah and christian scriptural interpretation. It is symbolized by the Star of David – overlapping triangles pointing both up and down. In terms of the temple it means that the temple is an image of the cosmos ( hashamayim ). The veil represents the seperation of man from Adonai (Gen 3: 22-24). The temple curtain was torn by an earthquake at the death of Jesus and seperated the Holy of Holies (where the Ark of the Covenant would have been placed) from the rest of the temple (cf. Hebrews 8: 5 and 9-10:25). This temple typology is likewise applied to each of us when Paul declares that we are temples of the Holy Spirit so that the temple of creation is imaged in man where dwells the likeness of Adonai in the presence of the Holy Spirit. Just as Adonai entered the earthly temple with His glory so Adonai enters into each of us who have been baptised (abloutions) and received the Spirit (laying on of hands) and who testify to the covenant in our deeds of witness and faithfulness.
Christopher,
There were two veils – one separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place, the other the Holy Place from the Outer Court. If the torn veil could be seen from the Mt of Olives where Yeshua was crucified, then which veil was torn? It must have been the outer veil that separated the outer court from the Holy Place, indicating that all could now come into the Holy Place to minister to YHVH (after being appropriately cleansed, of course). OTOH, only the High Priest can enter the Holy of Holies; hence, the writer to the Hebrews speaking of our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (the King of Righteousness) ministering in the Holy of Holies before the throne of the Most High.
This is correct since the tearing of the veil doesn’t suggest that anyone has access to the Holy of Holies but rather that there is no longer any separation between Jew and Gentile. In the past, a Gentile could approach the inner court with a sacrifice but he would have to be accompanied by a Jew. Now all may bring sacrifices without a proxy. But the Holy of Holies remains sacred and accessible only to those specifically designated by God.
Dear Skip and Rodney,
The text itself can not be unambigiously interpreted to mean only one or if one which one. Therefore your position is completely acceptable and makes sense. However, because it is possible that both curtains were torn it remains an open issue that Moshiach will restore the nakedness of Adam and Eve before Adonai. Just as Adam and Eve were עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (arummim) naked and knew no shame. This is both before Adonai and before each other so that the second veil of the temple which is the skins of animals made by Adonai:
וַיַּעַשׂ יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ, כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר–וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם.
Therefore if the priesthood of Mashiach cleanes from all sin then no sin remains to be cleansed and man’s seperation from Adonai is removed because there is no fear of death anymore and no cause to hide from His presence. This brings into account the teaching of Paul that we are inheritors of Mashiach and until we receive this inheritance at our physical deaths we remain treated as slaves possing only the promise. Thus it is possible for both views to be true because we do not know precisely what is the case. Still eventually the inner veil must be removed either in this life or the next.
Christopher, what is your reference for the statement that the torn veil could be seen from the Mt. of Olives? Thanks!
Sorry, that was directed at Rodney 🙂
Skip,
Here’s Westcott/Hort with diacritics:
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν·
Notice the use of ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklēsia) for church. You cite “qehelah” here as you did in your article on Gen 1:9. for the LXX. Note the usage:
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός συναχθήτω τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν καὶ ὀφθήτω ἡ ξηρά καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά (kai eipen o theos sunachthētō to udōr to upokatō tou ouranou eis sunagōgēn mian kai ophthētō ē ξēra kai egeneto outōs kai sunēchthē to udōr to upokatō tou ouranou eis tas sunagōgas autōn kai ōphthē ē ξēra). Notice συναγωγὴν (sunagogen) differs:
1577 ekklēsía(from 1537 /ek, “out from and to” and 2564 /kaléō, “to call”) – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom
[The English word “church” comes from the Greek word kyriakos, “belonging to the Lord” (kyrios). 1577 /ekklēsía (“church”) is the root of the terms “ecclesiology” and “ecclesiastical.”]
It seems to me that ekklesia is being used in the same sense as Greek ἔξοδος, Exodos, meaning ”
going out”; Hebrew: שמות, Šemot, “Names”. This would tend to make the english translation church more appropriate as “going out to” implies “the Lord’s possession”. The sense is that Adonai is acting in the same sense as Gen 3:15 “w’ëyväh äshiyt Bëyn’khä ûvëyn häiSHäh ûvëyn zar’ákhä ûvëyn zar’äH hû y’shûf’khä rosh w’aTäh T’shûfeNû äqëv š” – Adonai puts hostility between the woman and her seed and the Nahash versus Adonai gathers or collects His possession-people. There is a typological reference here to Egypt and the Exodus with church that qehelah doesn’t convey because it refers to human action whereas church implies divine action: With qehelah men assemble to pray but with church Adonai gathers His people, His inheritance.
Let me try to add to this as briefly as I can. While “church” does come ultimately (via German) from the Greek “pertaining to the Lord” (kyriakos), this is derived from the Greek of the Middle Ages when the word was already associated with the building where believers assembled. The issue at hand is not what the word means in its adaption to the believing community but rather what it meant in Greek in the first century before it was adapted to the believing community. When we investigate, we discover that ekklesia never means a “religious” assembly in classical Greek. The use of the word to describe religious activity is unique to the New Testament. This raises the question, “If the Greek word synagogue is already available to the New Testament authors, why did they choose to use a word that did not have religious connotations?” My comments point out that the New Testament authors are thinking in Hebraic terms. Therefore, they wish to capture in a Greek word the meaning of qehelah and edah, words used to describe the religious assembly in the Tanakh. But they don’t choose synagoge. Instead, they force a word which has no religious connection to become the standard for the community.
Your suggestion that ekklesia may be tied to the Greek exodus is interesting. But exodus is the Greek name of the book. If these men were thinking Hebrew, I am not sure about the connection to shemot. It seems to me that we would have to argue for a LXX basis if we follow this train of thought.
I agree that ekklesia has useful connections for a description of the community as understood by the New Testament authors. But I think it is important to recognize that the word didn’t mean what we now translate as “church” when it was first adapted. Since then, of course, we are now so familiar with the adapted meaning that it seems impossible it could have ever meant anything else.
It’s also interesting that the word is quickly associated within the first few centuries with the physical building, not with the community.
Dear Skip,
A very strong argument. I was thinking of the gospel of Matthew where Jesus meets Moses and Elijah and discuss the exodus … Since hebrew addresses both functionality and purpose it seems possible that we are both in agreement and that both senses of its usage are being invoked. Was not the qehelah likewise called out of Egypt as part of Israel?
Yes Christopher, before the Messiah and before Pentecost, God had a Temple for His people, and after the Ruach HaKodesh was given God now has a People for His Temple. We (who are His), we who belong to the (always Good!) Shepherd are the habitation of God through the Spirit. Christ now dwells in us and we are the children of God. The Spirit (the Ruach HaKodesh) bears witness with our spirit that we are (now, today) the children of God.
I know beyond knowing I belong to Him. I am (there is zero doubt) I am a child of the King. All hail King Jesus, all hail Emmanuel!
The ekklesia- the “called out ones” the chosen assembly belonging to YHWH- is not a building but a body. Not an organization, but an organism. We are “living stones” built up (by God) to be His dwelling place .~ My dwelling place will be with them. I will be their God, and they will be my people ~ (Ezekiel 37.27)
~The LORD (ADONAI) is my Shepherd, – I shall not want..~ My God will supply all of your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus ~ He is (and always has been) Faithful to me. All of His words are true.
We are Ruth and the future Bride of our Heavenly Boaz- the LORD Jesus (who is the) Anointed ONE.
~ and the Owner said to His servant, ‘Go out to the streets and to the place of hedges and compel them to enter, that My house may be filled ~
Dear Skip and Rodney,
I seem to have gotten my language syntax mixed up in my first reply: The two temple veils are representations of the two skins Adonai gave to the man and woman to cover their nakedness. The outer veil represents the garmets of the woman and the inner veil represents the garments of the man. Mashiach removes both veils even if it must wait for His return. He stands in the Holy of Holies until the faithful are pure and will leave the Holy of Holies to judge creation at His return. In terms of typology for man as the temple of the Holy Spirit, He remains hidden in the center of the soul until that one is either purified or He comes to pass judgement. For those who are purified there is no need for seperation and man’s nakedness before Adonai is restore. We enter into the Holy of Holies with Mashiach as part of His body which is the consumation of our union as the bride of Adonai – שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים Šîr haŠîrîm. The Shechina (indwelling Divine presence) of the Lecha Dodi.
Interesting midrash. Haven’t heard this one before. Is there a rabbinic background to this. I am a bit perplexed by the “hidden in the center of the soul” idea since “soul” is not a Hebrew way of viewing Man.
Dear Skip,
I’m lacking in vocabulary here for a word that describes “inner most being” so “soul” was as close as I could get. Baraita de-Rabbi b. Jair writes some interesting stuff on this. Midrash Tadshe deals with Tabernacle symbolism and numerology and I believe Paul uses either a common source, draws from Tadshe, or both
Good morning, Christopher, seems like I get my answer. The other day,
— don’t recall which post–, I asked you if inside the Holy of Holies with
Him is where heaven (is).
~ Now may the God of shalom make you holy in every way, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless until our LORD Jesus (who is the) Christ comes again ~(1 Thessalonians 5.23)
~ For as the body without the (wind-spirit-breath) is dead, so faith without works is dead also ~ (James 2.26)
~ The LORD is my Shepherd..- I shall not want ~
I Found the Lily in my valley
All alone and broken hearted
Trying to calm the raging battle in my mind
In the search of many answers
That my troubled soul just couldn’t seem to find
I saw a Flower blooming
Where there was no rain or sunshine
And I knew not that this flower
Would change the rest of my life
I found the Lily in my valley
I found Strength when I was worn
I found a place to leave my burdens
I found Refuge from the storm
A place where I trade my dark skies
To beaming rays of sunshine
I found a Lily in my valley
And He blooms all the time
So if you’re down and broken hearted
And you just can’t seem to find peace of mind
You’re searching for your answers
But your problems are getting worse all the time
Just reach your hands to Jesus
He’ll take you in and break the ties that bind
He’ll be your Lily in your valley
You can watch Him bloom all the time
He’ll be your Lily in your valley
He’ll be Strength when you are worn
He’ll be the place to leave your burdens
He’ll give you refuge from the storm
A place where you trade your dark skies
To beaming rays of sunshine
He’ll be your Lily in your valley
And He’ll bloom all the time
I found the Lily in my valley
I found Strength when I was worn
I found a place to leave my burdens
He gave me refuge from the storm
A place where I trade my dark skies
To beaming rays of sunshine
I found the Lily in my valley
And He blooms all the time
Yes, -He’s the Lily of my valley
And He blooms all the time
~ Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I AM God, and there is no other ~ (Isaiah 45.22)
One more song for You..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NRJHXNHre4&feature=fvwrel
I see no-one has commented on: “The mystery of Daniel 7 jumps from the page here” I have read Boyarin’s book and have since become fascinated with this “mystery” in Judaism). Since this was written in Aramaic and refers to the ‘Son of enosh’ and not ‘Son of adam’, I have come across an interesting discrepancy: In the gospels, when Yeshua refers to this passage, it states “Son of Man”, but in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Shem Tov) it has been changed (?) to “Son of God”. Did the rabbis try to hide this Son of Man mystery? I find this fascinating…
Can you elucidate a little on this, Skip? Why did you say that it ‘jumps from the page here”?
Shalom
Does anyone know how the torn veil could be seen from the Mt. of Olives? I mean, what is the source/scriptural reference for this statement?
There was no veil in the Holy of Holies in the second temple, but doors. The veil that tears and can be seen from the Mount of Olives was the massive ten story or so veil on the front of the temple that was held up by 20 ton lintel. The archaeologist Mazar of Israel writes about his finding the lintel.
It seems that the earthquake at the time of the crucifixion as recorded in the Gospels was the cause of the renting of this massive veil. We get some hint of the damage of the earthquake to the Temple compound where in the Talmud we learn the Sanhedrin stopped meeting in the Temple’s Court of Hewn Stone.
Here is an excellent article with proof text of the ceasing of miracles associated with the Temple after the crucifixion. As a side not you will find in the Talmudic quotes reference to the temple doors.
http://bethaderech.com/mashiach-and-the-jewish-temple-hekal/
Thank you Luis
There was no veil in the Holy of Holies in the second temple, but doors. The veil that tears and can be seen from the Mount of Olives was the massive ten story or so veil on the front of the temple that was held up by 20 ton lintel. The archaeologist Mazar of Israel writes about his finding the lintel.
It seems that the earthquake at the time of the crucifixion as recorded in the Gospels was the cause of the renting of this massive veil. We get some hint of the damage of the earthquake to the Temple compound where in the Talmud we learn the Sanhedrin stopped meeting in the Temple’s Court of Hewn Stone.