Not What We Expected
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, Romans 1:1 NASB
Gospel of God – Dwight Pryor’s lectures on Paul and the Protestant paradigm challenge our presuppositions about Paul’s letters.[1] Pryor makes many significant points, but chief among them must be his focus on the meaning of “the gospel of God.” As he notes, most of us probably find Paul’s use of this phrase, euangelion theou, quite surprising, not because Paul uses some shocking combination but because we expect to hear “gospel of Jesus Christ” or something like that. Pryor asks the important question, “What is the ‘gospel of God’?” The answer has some critical implications.
First, let’s examine the word euangelion, translated “gospel.” The Greek term means “good news,” or “the reward for good news.” In the Greek world, this was generally news of a victory. “euangélion is particularly important in the emperor cult. The emperor is a divine ruler who controls nature, dispenses healing, serves as a protective god, and brings good fortune, his birth being accompanied by cosmic signs. Imperial messages, then, are joyous ones, since what he says is a divine act implying good and salvation.”[2] First century Greek readers would be familiar with this use, but the apostolic authors use the word quite sparingly, except for Paul. Of the 76 occurrences, 60 are in Paul’s material. Furthermore, Paul uses the term with the definite article, so it is not any form of good news but rather the specific good news that interests Paul. Recognizing this, we must note that it is the good news of God, not the good news of the Messiah or of our salvation or of the Church.
“What is this ‘good news’?” The answer depends on whether this phrase is about God or about us. Let me explain. Pryor points out that Protestants usually read this text as if the good news is from God for us. That is, what we are about to hear concerns us. It is good news because God has rescued us and forgiven our sins. We are the object of this good news. But that doesn’t seem to be Paul’s intention. Paul writes about the good news concerning God. The good news is not about us but rather about God Himself. This good news is that God is righteous. In other words, He keeps His promises despite our disobedience. We deserved judgment, but He has determined to act with benevolence. The good news is that God acts according to His covenant obligations. That’s what it means to be righteous.
This changes things. Paul is not writing about how to be saved nor is he writing about God’s forgiveness. He is writing about the character of God with regard to the covenant. This means he is addressing those who are under the covenant. He is explaining that God has not forsaken His promises to His covenant people. God remains faithful. The letter to the assembly in Rome is not an evangelistic message. It is a reminder about the covenant-keeping God.
Protestants usually read Romans as an evangelistic tract. As a result, they view salvation forensically, that is, as if it were a legal issue. According to this view, Yeshua is the substitute for us. We deserved punishment but God substituted Yeshua in our place so that we might be declared blameless even though we aren’t. This substitutionary atonement means that righteousness is “imputed” to us, that is, righteousness is given to us by divine act. Of course, what this implies is that we not only didn’t earn it but that it doesn’t matter how we acted before the imputation or after. God determines who will receive this legal standing. Therefore, what we do makes no difference.
All of this changes if Paul is writing about covenant-keeping faithfulness. Now the message is not only about God keeping His promises to us but also about the requirement that we keep our promises to Him. This tiny grammatical change has enormous theological consequences. Perhaps it has consequences for you as well.
Topical Index: gospel of God, euangelion, righteousness, imputed, Romans 1:1
[1] Dwight Pryor, Paul and the Protestant Paradigm, 3 audio lectures from www.jcstudies.com
[2] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (269). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
The declaration of God’s transcending nature versus the transforming nature Yeshua.
As we are called to be saints or apostles of the prophecy of Yeshua. It may be important to read Romans then to understand how God transcends to intervene instead of how Yeshua came to save…
Interesting change you are emphasising here, Skip
What if its not either/or, but both, Seeker? He came to me because I was stuck in my sin and could not approach Him. He imputes (no, evangelicals and others, that is not your word, that is Paul’s) His right relatedness to us, each other, and the Father, for we have only fracture. He “transcends to intervene” (thanks, Seeker for the quote) in my self-imposed destruction, and in the process of that mighty intervention in my addiction to sin, He transforms me into a creature able to love again. Halleluah! Its all about Him! Skip says above that a covenant has two parties. He keeps His end, but we must keep ours, too.
So, what’s my end of this marvelous deal? Does it happen at conversion (I have no idea what that word means, really, as I have no specific point in my life that I think I can point to in regards to me. Yeshua told Peter right before the crucifixion, that Peter would be qualified AFTER he was converted! At this point in my meditation about conversion, I think it could be something YHVH can point to on His end, no doubt, about us, but that we may not be able to very well on our end. Still muttering, growling, and chewing on this, y’all. I know Paul had a white light experience on the road to Damascus, but perhaps he is the exception, not the rule. But I digress mightily.) Does it happen in my sleep? Do I ‘earn’ it? No, my end is shema: hear and do. How do I ‘do’ love? How do I “rightly divide the word of truth” in each moment? Someone I know said “the right thing at the wrong time is not right”. Righteousness, or rightly relating, is not something I am capable of, So, how do I follow the instructions to do it? I need a heart transplant! (Thank you, Isaiah and Jeremiah)
We come to the word “impute”. What is this mysterious action, obviously on His part? How do I get His heart, His mind, His TIMING, if you please, when it comes to love? I was reading some of Skip’s earlier posts yesterday, and he was pointing out that the word “deny” (as in “deny myself”. If you want to read it, try looking up the reference to the verse) would refer to the action of not depending on, or starting from, my own understanding, but constantly dropping my interpretation, my natural-born inclination, my ‘way’, as it were, and listening only to Him, following only Him, and doing only what I see Him do as my Example. I should not be looking to lean on my own connections when it comes to love. I have not a correct one, y’all: not with Him, myself, or with others. I need His! I cannot love without being connected any more than a person can tithe without substance coming in. Sin keeps me from loving (obeying). How do I get this marvelous ability ( love, I mean)? At the trading post (that would be the tslav for us, y’all). What trade goods do I have? My sins. I must trade my sins, for them to be TRANSFORMED into righteousness. Yep, that’s what Skip points out about that “white as snow” stuff. There’s your transformation – your imputation, if you will. He can take my weakness and transform it into His strength in me. He can take my mind and transform it into His. At the trading post, that is. I think on this planet, anyway, we all need to be living at that trading post!
How do I trade my sins? Repentance. So how does my transformation (sanctification) occur? One sin trade at a time. What do I trade into? His relations, His mind, His connections, His ability, His timing, His way His will. What do I trade with? My miserable, failed attempts at the same. I don’t work my way into this Kingdom: no, I must be transformed before I can operate at all in this Kingdom! I can only love after I have been freed from sin. I am only rightly-related after I hand over my wrong relating. At that point, His will flows through my veins. My will exists to keep the floodgates open for that. I need Immanuel’s blood in my veins before I can live. My job is not to be the source of that life (love by my own will), but to allow the real Source free flow in me. Wait; that is what Yeshua came to show me! Halleluah!
Laurita
Immanuel Emmanuel
Never really know which one… God with us.
Shema word or will heard God transcending
Do the will Yeshua transforming.
Salvation is therefore repentance to become an example of Yeshua being revealed…
Gal 5:22
Isaiah 45:14-15
Job 38:21
Jer 6:16
Psalm 119:33-40
The emperor is a divine ruler who controls nature, dispenses healing, serves as a protective god, and brings good fortune, his birth being accompanied by cosmic signs. Imperial messages, then, are joyous ones, since what he says is a divine act implying good and salvation.”
Skip, on a totally different note, when I read these verses, I thought about Daniel’s vision of the future and his vision of the statue of the legs of iron mixed with clay. I couldn’t help but think about our Western forms of government today and them wanting to structure themselves so that they become the peoples god instead of trusting in the true God. Do you have any thought on this?
there’s a song by Mercy Me which contains the lines: there’ll be days I lose the battle, Grace says it doesn’t matter, because the cross already won the war.
That stanza always worries me when I hear it!
John, I agree. Truly a stumbling block, man made, to the Jews and believers alike. Shalom!
I have just one word to say: context. I’ll let Scripture say the rest:
Q: Is there a distinction between “the Gospel of God” and “the Gospel of his Son”? [Hint: verse 2 –concerning who?]
Q: Who/what is “the [s/]Spirit of holiness”?
Q: What is the significance of juxtaposing “descended from David according to the flesh” and “declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead? [Hint: it’s not necessarily the ‘two natures’ doctrine]
“Hint” for first question should obviously be verse 3…
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Not a great comparison, but Who “came” first, YHWH the Creator, or Yeshua haMeshiach? Surely the Creator is Aleph Taw, and NONE other, can’t have two Beginning(s) and two End(s). So too, The Gospel of GOD, according to God, from the very beginning.
We as well as the Patriarchs and matriarchs, and the multitudes before us, were faithful bondservants of YHWH, not sure if we should be bondservants of Yeshua. But, rather be as him as an obedient son, learning obedience through suffering, totally submitting to YHWH’s will.
Be you holy as I am holy, thus the Spirit of holiness comes from GOD.
So too, GOD will bring many sons, who are GOD’s bondservants to glory.
I absolutely agree that there cannot be ‘two Beginning(s) and two End(s)’; nor can there be two “Israel’s King and Redeemer(s)”:
We all know that YHVH was “the Rock” in the Torah, the Pentateuch; yet, how can Yeshua be that same Rock?:
As Skip has often repeated, emphasized, over and over-
“When we come to the Scriptures we begin with certain premises and go on to interpret accordingly. If we begin with preexistence then we look for passages that might confirm this premise. If we believe that the Tanakh (Old Testament) demands a man as messiah and not the avatar of an angel or other spirit—and if we wish to uphold the New Testament in light of the Old—then we look for verses that confirm that. Because the Bible is written with riddles and types and symbols, each side of a controversy always ends up with a residue of “difficult scriptures”—what the one uses for support the other will have to “explain”.
If John 1:15, 30 can support preexistence, then all that the other side has to do is show that these verses can also be explained another way. has so often repeated, over and over.”
It is a paradigm, a THOUGHT WORLD; unless one can come to grips having that mindset change, quoting Scriptures and NT verses, would utterly be of NO avail.
WHY? It’s reading into the texts with what one has been taught, with a preconceived mindset, e.g.-
“There are a couple more verses in the first chapter of John that are of particular interest because they seem to say, at least for some, that Jesus preexisted. These are verse 15 and verse 30:
15 ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ
15 John bare witness of him,
καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων,
and cried, saying,
οὖτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον,
This was he of whom I spake,
ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος
He that cometh after me
ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν,
is preferred before me:
ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.
for he was before me.
30 οὖτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὖ ἐγὼ εἶπον,
30 This is he of whom I said,
ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ
After me cometh a man
ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν,
which is preferred before me:
ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.
for he was before me.
First one might note the contrast between ἔμπροσθεν ‘in front of’ and πρῶτος ‘first in a sequence’. Both words—especially the latter—can denote rank. There is also a difference in verbs: γέγονεν ‘has become’ versus ἦν ‘was’. Thus John 1:15 can be interpreted,
He that comes after me (in birth order)
has come before me (into my presence) [2]
because he was before me (of higher office than I).” – Noel Rude.
Comment is too long, will be continued….
“The author of the book of Hebrews is emphasizing, in a sophisticated rabbinical fashion, that though the kingship is passed on via a genealogy, the sons of God are sons of the resurrection, just as Jesus said (Luke 20:36), “Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
The first chapter of John’s Gospel. it is the Word/TORAH that imparts the power to become sons of God.
12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, 12 But as many as received him, [ “him” (αὐτόν) references the word (ὁ λόγος) which is the Bible, as it says (Isaiah 8:20), “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word …”
ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν to them gave he (Torah) power
τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, to become the sons of God,
τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, even to them that believe on his (TORAH) name:
13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων 13 Which … not of blood,
οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς nor of the will of the flesh,
οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς nor of the will of man,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. but of God [were born].
14 καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο 14 And the Word was made flesh (IN US, becoming us)
καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, and dwelt among us,
καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, (and we beheld his (TORAH) glory,
δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,
According to the lexicons μονογενής does not mean ‘only begotten’, rather it is a compound of γένος ‘kind’ and as such might mean an only, a firstborn, or a chosen son. It recalls Isaac in Heb 11:17: “… and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [μονογενής reflecting יָחִיד in Gen 22:2: ‘Take now thy son, thine only (יְחִידְךָ) son Isaac, whom thou lovest’] )
πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. full of grace and truth (referring to TORAH).
Adapted from Noel Rude.
What an eye-opener! This has so blessed me, hope it blesses you and ALL here as well.
I could come back and provide my own interpretation, but that would be futile. But, I wonder why you’ve not addressed why Paul makes the claim that “the Rock” was Messiah/Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, as I mentioned in the comment to which you’ve responded.
I don’t usually use John 1:15 and/or 1:30 to show preexistence, because these can be difficult texts to explain. Much more straightforward is John 17:5:
Here Yeshua is asking the Father to glorify Yeshua in the same manner with which he had before creation. This clearly implies preexistence.
There’s no doubt we bring our own ideas into interpreting the text; however, I stand by my continued assertion that the text itself must be properly exegeted first. Yes, there can and usually are some options in actually exegeting the text which then may hinge on one’s hermeneutical approach; however, the text still has to make sense in its immediate and larger context.
In this case, I would agree with Rude’s initial statements regarding the options for exegeting 1:15 (and 1:30 [and also μονογενής in verse 14]) – is it rank, or is it sequence in view in these clauses, or a mixture of the two, and if so, which is rank and which is sequence? However, with all due respect, his conclusions end in making nonsense out of the immediate (not to mention the larger context). Let me explain.
The text reiterates something the Baptist had apparently mentioned earlier. That is, he is explaining what he meant by his previous statement. Applying Rude’s conclusions, the sentence would mean (applying a functionally equivalent statement, i.e., using Rude’s parenthetical explanations as the text):
John testified about him, and he cried out, saying, “This is he of whom I said, ‘He that was born after me has come into my presence because he was of higher office than I’.”
The ‘because’ clause does not fit the sentence – how does because he was of higher office than I explain why ‘he has come into my presence’? It just doesn’t follow logically.
“…Of course, what this implies is that we not only didn’t earn it but that it doesn’t matter how we acted before the imputation or after.”
Not one true Christian/Christ-follower (one who takes in the entire counsel of Scripture) would make the claim that individuals’ actions ‘post-imputation’ are of no consequence [cf. Romans 8:6-8; 12:1-2, etc.].
the message that Yeshua preached was repent for the kingdom of heaven/God is at hand. That message is declared by the prophets and it regards the culmination of God’s promises in regards to the covenant. Concerning the son is the venue of accomplishment concerning that covenant as displayed by the resurrection. Again, it’s a matter of perspective Craig, you read it as though the son is the point of the gospel instead of the conduit of its completion.
Your words here illustrate the continued imposition of a paradigm upon the text before the text is properly exegeted. Nowhere in this context do we find anything related to the Law. Nowhere. And since it’s concerning his Son in verse 3, then verse 2 is pointing to the same thing. Does not other NT Scripture indicate that that which was ‘promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures’ is the Messiah? Given the context, this must be Paul’s intended meaning: ‘the Gospel of God is the promise in the Scriptures concerning his Son’; then, following, ‘this Son was descended from David and declared to be Son of God by the power kata pneuma hagiōsynēs, according to the S/spirit of H/holiness by His resurrection. This accords with Hebrew 1:3-5 (the latter referencing Psalm 2:7):
You’ve failed to address the question: Is there a distinction between “the Gospel of God” (concerning his Son) and “the Gospel of his Son”. The context does not make a distinction; in fact, logically, the two are the same.
I’ll get back with you a bit later, as I’ve a lot to accomplish at the moment. I’ll just say this for the moment, we all approach the text with a paradigm and our “exegesis” will reflect that. I am guilty, as are you, and so were the people this was written to as well as the Israelites of old. One wouldn’t have to bring up the “law”, as without that covenant, nothing else is properly identified, including the Kingdom. But speaking of logic, if the two terms mean the same thing, why is there two terms used?
Briefly, as I have to run, the two terms/phrases mean the same by their relative contexts. “The Gospel of God” is modified/qualified/explained by the words following regarding “his Son”. The second one is more straightforward, as Paul put’s “God” and “gospel of his Son” in close proximity.
As Paul began the letter he was taking pains to point out that the Gospel of God was the Gospel of his Son with his long description of the Son in that context. The first four verses should be viewed as one long sentence, or at least one long train of thought. Verse 5 through 6 are a continuation of this initial preface/intro.
Exegesis should always precede our hermeneutic / paradigm. And proper exegesis must consider the immediate context; otherwise, it’s just a proof-text.
Hey Skip, I just posted a reply here and it showed it as up, but it’s no longer here. Just wanted to know if there was something wrong with the post before I retry it. 🙂
I don’t see it on the site. Sorry. Something went wrong.
Just wanted to make sure, thanks
I think I just figured it out, I filled in the response code before I wrote the reply and it didn’t accept it, I thought it was posted but it wasn’t. Thanks again.
Hey Craig, sorry for the delayed response as its fall in the garden and much to do. So, while I won’t “debate” you on this issue, what I’ll attempt to accomplish is to help you understand why I arrive at the conclusion I do, anything else will most likely lead to a reiteration of the same insistence, which leads to proof texts, ….and on and on, while it misses the point of perception. Your insistence on “true exegesis and context” misses the fact that both are derived from a peculiar perspective. Ones attempt to “exegete” is not necessarily superior to another’s, only different and can lead to an increased understanding of the texts in question, if allowed. That being said, (please don’t think I taking you to task here, it’s neither my intention nor my place to do so. I only mention it for clarification.) In regards to the “gospel” (son/God) the declaration of the law and prophets provides a promise of a Kingdom coming (1) and an anointed One (2) that God will raise up to establish it. Both have criteria that have to be met to be legit. This, (in my view) is exactly what romans 1 is expressing, The Kingdom of God (good news) is being established as promised, concerning the son is the met criteria of the anointed. The good news of the son is that he’s here to establish it. Either way, the prevalent theme is the Kingdom, does that mean there aren’t similarities, of course not, but it doesn’t make them equivalent. I could also bold print to highlight sections of this passage to “prove” my point, but it won’t accomplish one whit of change, as you read them from a completely different angle than I do. I’m hoping that you may now understand some of the reasons I approach the text as I do and perhaps, we can engage in true discussion as opposed to attempting to convert. One thing I might add in closing is that I see you speak of context as being important (I agree) but I would say that there’s a larger context generally ignored or glossed over by the Christian community in general. Until that is addressed, much can’t be clarified because the house is different from the foundation and that makes the premise as well as the conclusion in error. I wouldn’t dare ask that you attempt to change your belief structure, but I may suggest that you attempt to analyze yourself in regards to assumptions brought to the texts, as I try to do as well, it’s difficult but rewarding, and it allows God to speak to you instead of your training.
YHWH bless you and keep you…………..
Robert,
Thanks for your considered response. Actually, the back and forth does help me to better see another’s view if I don’t see it initially. As I understand you, we are to look at the NT through the lens of the OT, and it is this that leads you towards viewing the “Gospel” here as two. I think I understand why you (and Skip) think this is so, though I don’t think I can agree. Which is fine.
I really do attempt to look at the texts afresh when I read views that are different from my own. Doesn’t mean I can understand the distinctions right away.
Paul being a Pharisee was well-versed in the Tanach, yet he specifically referred to only “the Prophets” in verse 2, rather than “the Law and the Prophets” as is used elsewhere in the NT. Wouldn’t Paul then, by implication, only be referring to messianic prophetic Scriptures in the context of Romans 1?
In any case, certainly this would include the Son as the ‘Suffering Servant’ of Isaiah 53. Yet, that chapter points out both God’s actions, his love for all people by providing the sacrificial Son, and at the same time that the Son “was pierced for our transgressions…”. Doesn’t that make it both/and – that the “Gospel” includes God’s righteousness and the effects “for us as humans”?
Craig, I think I have seen Skip try to point out (and he is going to have to correct me) that, read correctly, there is no difference between the understanding, pre Yeshua, and post Yeshua, about the covenants. There was NEVER any way for forgiveness of deliberate sin except by grace, Old Testament or New, and one covenant does not negate the other, either. We have been TAUGHT these hair splitters, and now we try to ‘argue’ (prove) them, when there is no conflict to begin with. These things unnecessarily have been used to create straw men of division for the purposes of neglecting the Law; usually, unfortunately, the Sabbath of the Ten.
Try reading past posts before you get too excited. Skip (and others here) might be understanding a good bit more than you might think.
Laurita,
I don’t disagree regarding grace OT and NT, as Hebrews 11 and, even Revelation 13:8 (Skip has a post on the latter, which I even referenced in a comment a while back) make clear.
I’m not sure that you can make that fine a line in the distinction between law and prophets. Here’s the verse; ….the gospel of God, which He promised through the prophets of Him….(His prophets) Moses was a prophet and the “law” he conveyed is regarded as prophetic and in fact the “law” defines both a prophet and the prophetic content of their speech. Regardless, just the “prophets” speak of the Kingdom as well as the Messiah who is to rule it. The distinction I was attempting to make is that the gospels are identifiably different, though vastly similar because the “son” is engaged to accomplish the Kingdom of God. So it is both/or but the thrust is still concerning the promise of the Kingdom. I read on another post that you thought the gentiles of Rome may not be familiar with the law, but even if they were why would they feel bound to it. You might want to check a little deeper on that issue as, they attended synagogue (per acts) along with the Jewish congregation on sabbat. I understand your view concerning righteousness as proclaimed by Paul, and I don’t fundamentally disagree, but I do disagree on your take of it. It’s not a dismissal of the law, but a fulfillment of it. One who is walking in the Spirit looks like one walking by the law, how else would one be able to judge his actions? The law written on the heart.
BTW, thank you in return for your response and the way it was laid out, we may be in disagreement concerning some things but at least now we’re talking.
Regarding the “the Law and the Prophets” I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree. I didn’t expound on my point, so, maybe this will help you see why I see it this way. In the NT “the Law and the Prophets” was used throughout the Gospels as another way of saying ‘the entire Scriptures’, i.e. the books of the Law and the books of the Prophets (and one other time Jesus adds “the Psalms”: Luke 24:44). E.g. Jesus used it in Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. The same is used in Matthew 22:40, with Jesus explaining part of the Shema. Moreover, Luke equates “Moses” with “the Law” in Luke 16:29-31.
Point taken about Gentiles in Acts. However, apparently not all Gentiles went to the Synagogue (Acts 19:8-10).
One who is walking in the Spirit looks like one walking by the law, how else would one be able to judge his actions? The law written on the heart. Agreed.
[As an aside, I know firsthand the frustration of taking the time to write out a lengthy comment only to have it disappear! For that reason, most times I compose in MS Word first, then copy and paste.]
Thanks for the advice and I normally do as much. Got lazy and paid the price. 🙂 Concerning the statement about the law and prophets and it’s uses, don’t be to quick to hop on the agree to disagree bandwagon, as there would seem to be a difference in how Yeshua used the term as pointing too the texts they had available and how Paul uses it here. The difference being the term “autou” which shows ownership or affiliation. Paul doesn’t speak of the prophets as in the written texts (though they certainly are in mind, but speaks of “His” prophets, i.e.; those who are confirmed to speak in His name. Now, I’m not that versed in greek structure but it would seem that it’s pretty clear in the description and structure. Please correct me (anyone else as well) if I’m in error here. So Moses as being a prophet (one of the His “prophets”) is indeed included in the introductory remarks by Paul. Again, the distinction is that Paul speaks of the “persons” of the prophets and not the writings (that Yeshua addressed) that have been handed down.
Yes, Paul uses the pronoun autos in the genitive/possessive here (autou). I checked Morris (the exegete Skip references in the very next post) and he opines that by its unique phraseology – ‘literally’, through his prophets in holy writings – Paul means all OT writers, rather than “the Prophets”, as in the prophetic writings. This, of course, would include Moses. Having conceded this, however, I stand by my initial assertion that the Law itself, the Mosaic Law, is not in view in this context. Let me explain.
Paul specifically juxtaposes “the Law” with “the Law and the Prophets” in 3:19-26. Here “the Law and the Prophets” must refer to the entire OT, which then promotes the question as to why Paul phrased 1:2 the way he did. From my perspective, it was precisely because verse 2 is modified with “concerning his Son”.
Rather than the Mosaic Law, I think Paul has in mind Moses’ prophecies concerning Messiah, such as the manna (John 6), and his repeated references to God as “the Rock”, a title Paul gives to Jesus (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Moreover, having now had an opportunity to look into this a bit more by doing a keyword search for “Moses”, “law” and “prophets” in Romans, I see that Paul paraphrases 1:2 in 16:26 as “through the writings of the prophets”, providing an inclusio, beautifully bookending the entire epistle.
Having stated the foregoing, I also stand by my initial assertion that “the Gospel God…concerning his Son” is the same as “the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.
In my previous comment I didn’t intend to imply that you were proof-texting, if that’s how it came across. I was speaking generally, though, IMO, I see the OP as doing just that.
Regarding the Law, this particular epistle of Paul was written to the Roman church, which was made up primarily of “Gentiles” (the word used here is ethnos) – see verses 5-6 – though Jews were certainly a minority segment of the Roman church (see 4:1; chapters 9-11). Would the Gentiles be familiar with Mosaic Law? Perhaps, but why would they feel bound to it? [Cf. Romans 2:14-15] Moreover, Paul does not even bring up the Law until 2:12, and this is used as a springboard to declare:
While Paul does not bring up the Law until 2:12, he speaks about faith six times just in the first 17 verses. In fact, verses 16-17 provide the theme for the entire epistle:
What’s your point, Craig? With all due respect, I think we all know the texts.
My point is that the assertion in the OP that the “Gospel of God” is about the Mosaic Law is not borne out by the context. It’s not ‘the Gospel of the Law’, so to speak (paraphrasing the OP), but about faith – faith in Jesus Christ. And, this “Gospel of God” is one and the same with “the Gospel of his Son”, i.e. Jesus Christ/Messiah [Romans 1:5-7,16-17]. We keep the Covenant only by: (1) accepting Christ’s ‘propitiatory sacrifice’ [Romans 3:25]; (2) through “the Holy Spirit whom he has given us” [Romans 5:5].
In other words, it’s not about keeping the Law in our own strength; it’s about accepting Messiahs’ atoning work on the cross through Christ’s resurrection [Romans 1:4], which will result in the indwelt Holy Spirit [Romans 5:5, 2 Cor 3:2-3,6:16-18]. It’s the Spirit within us Who guides us, if we obey the Spirit, rather than our sinful nature [Romans 8:6-8; 6:1-8:5]
And if we “obey the Spirit”, isn’t that going to be the Law?
Yes it is. My issue is that the OP posits an unnecessary dichotomy between “the Gospel of God” and both “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” and salvation.
From the OP:
…we must note that it is the good news of God, not the good news of the Messiah or of our salvation or of the Church.
…Paul is not writing about how to be saved nor is he writing about God’s forgiveness…
“The Gospel of God” IS “the Gospel of Jesus Christ”, which brings forth salvation to those who believe by faith.
Um, duly noted (for me, anyway), several posts back, in fact. Just wasn’t sure who you were trying to tell that to. That’s where you started out, I think. Shalom! Peace, brother. Already. Calm down. Nobody is going to take that from you, I am pretty sure. Here, anyway. You know, you could have just said that first. Everybody knows the texts. No one needs them repeated on the site Skip has to pay for.
Smile! I don’t think anyone is going to try to knock you off your personal paradigm pyramid. In return, lets try to not do that to anyone else, either. And, hey, it’s ok to just spit it out. We just need to know where YOU are coming from (kinda hard to get from you, I have noticed). We already know where we, each of us, are at with the Scripture. Each of us in an amazingly different place with it, and that’s ok! Halleluah!
Tone is hard to convey in the written word. I try to write with a neutral tone, though I’m sure it doesn’t always come out the way. I’m not in any way, perturbed, or what-have-you. No offense has been taken. I just wasn’t sure where you were going, if you understood my initial point. The rest was in answering Robert.
However, your assertion here that “everyone knows the texts” is not necessarily a given from what I’ve been reading here; and, in fact, I’ve noticed quite a bit of proof-texting, leading to different conclusions than what the context actually bears out.
I’ve been reading here trying to figure out the perspective on various ‘doctrines’. So far, I’ve found out that the Deity of Christ is denied (“Deity” meaning on par with the Father’s Deity), which, of course, bears on the Trinity, which is flat out denied. I’ve been told that my perspective – the typical Christian perspective on Atonement, Law/Grace in Galatians, etc. – is not what’s understood here, but I’ve yet to understand just what that entails. It seems as though the understanding is that we all must live the Torah by our own strength; but, I may be misinterpreting and/or have not read enough.
But, I think truth is objective, and that truth can be discerned. This is what I’m after, and what I will proclaim. (Doesn’t mean I’m always right, and sometimes dialogue will help me to see another perspective.) And, Skip states in his “About Skip” page that he is searching for truth.
There are some doctrines – such as eschatology – that there will never be consensus on. But, certain things are made pretty clear in Scripture when its totality is taken into account. My observation is that the latter is not always considered here.
Craig,
Understanding Scripture properly is like sitting (standing) on a 3 legged stool.
Culture, Context, Content
One must take into consideration not only the words, but also the culture, both immediate (early believers who are doing the speaking and hearing of it) and the larger local community, that which those believers are largely being drawn from.
In that, one then considers what Skip refers to as the “Biblical World View”; what the basic core beliefs and/or understandings of those cultures held to, religiously and otherwise.
From that one can surmise what the context of the words were really intended to relay and only THEN do we consider the content.
Without all 3 drawn from the time the words were written, what one draws from Scripture is, largely, drawn from THEIR understanding of THEIR immediate culture, as well as what they have been TOLD it means. At this point people trot off to find supporting evidence, all of which is drawn from the same, shallow well, as their immediate social group.
You present a large body of Scripture, using pretty much cookie cutter discussions of words and their meanings that basically we all have been through and (largely) discarded, NOT because the word plays didn’t seem to support our former notions, but because the more we learned about what was going on when those words were spoken, the more we grasped the idea that we were totally off base in what we thought we knew. (this is oftentimes referred to as a “Sacred Cow”) 😉
Skip has a number of teachings on Biblical World View as well as Biblical Leadership, along with any other number of topics that contribute to understanding to the text as it was intended to be understood. Many, if not most of us, started there.
Skip’s site serves to allow people to air (what WE might see) as outrageous ideas and concepts simply because we understand the value of that; sometimes putting into words ideas that one is toying with reveals either the strength or craziness of that idea.
We might laugh, we might push back, we MIGHT pick up that idea and toy with it ourselves. That’s the beauty of this place.
We can. And we are treated and responded to respectfully.
My observation of your posts is that in spite of the fact that you stated that you were well read and researched in different religions, even the occult, you seem to be woefully ignorant of the times and cultural norms of biblical times.
Your stool has only one leg.
Trying to hide that fact under an abundance of words and bible verses only makes it more glaring to those who see it.
“Regarding the Law, this particular epistle of Paul was written to the Roman church, which was made up primarily of “Gentiles” (the word used here is ethnos)”
Craig, Where would you expect to find Gentile OR Jewish followers of the Messiah gathered to hear meaningful discussion around 57 A.D.? A Roman temple, (a “church”, whatever that means), an open air forum or a synagogue? My money is on the synagogues. Where else could meaningful questions be asked and answered? Would Romans of either persuasion not be expected to have questions and discussions or would they just “blindly” believe? Synagogues were always open to monotheistic Gentiles as I understand. Still are.
Again, the audience matters. See Nanos on Romans.
The Mystery of Romans:- reviewed by Pamela Eisenbaum
“Paul modulates his rhetoric according to the nature of the issue and the audience it implies. Positive claims indicate that Paul wants to insure that gentiles have appropriate reverence for Torah. Furthermore, since Nanos considers Paul to be a good Jew, positive claims are what we expect from him. Negative claims derive from Paul’s need to convince other Jews not to have too arrogant an attitude about their claim to Torah.
“For Nanos, Paul was the consummate monotheist…… Since part of Israel rejected Paul’s message, there was greater opportunity to reach out to the other peoples of the world. Step Two: The ingathering of the nations provokes Israel’s jealousy, and, as a result, leads to repentance and restoration. Thus, in Paul’s words, “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26). In the typical reading of Romans, Israel’s jealousy derives from the other nations currying favor with God. For Nanos, Israel is jealous of Paul’s missionary success.”
Thanks Skip – I must read more Nanos.
Eisenbaum is another who views Paul as a Jew, not a Christian. She is not alone in this. There are a growing number of scholars who recognize that the Church rewrote the history for its own purposes. Ekklesia is a good example since it NEVER means a religious assembly in classical Greek. The question is why would Paul use this term when there is an appropriate religious term available, synagoge. The answer is that synagoge is ANY religious assembly, and Paul is at pains to make sure his Gentile readers do not think he is advocating a NEW religion. There is a lot about this on Bob Gorelik’s site (and I have written on it as well). The point is that Paul is NOT writing to CHRISTIANS. That means his message must make sense to both orthodox Jews and Messianic Gentiles in Rome. Time to rethink the usual Church ideas. Paul is interested in the Hebrew qehalah, the assembly of religious Jews and Gentiles who worship YHVH, i.e., a MONOTHEISTIC faith. Paul reiterates this idea over and over in his declarations about the Torah, his affirmation of the teachings of the Pharisees and the elders, his view of the resurrection, etc. Only by ignoring his avowed monotheism are we able to claim that he wrote to a NEW religious group called “Christians.” There is so much written about this that it hardly is worth noting here. I have listed many, many books on the subject on my web site, and there are more all the time. The age of replacement theology and the denial of the JEWISH gospels is coming to a close.
Skip,
This is the sort of thing that makes it difficult for me to understand and adhere to your perspective. Yes, it’s true that Paul does not use synagogē. It’s also true that he uses ekklēsia – in the Epistle to the Romans, only in the final chapter in which it’s translated “church” in most English versions (Darby and Young’s use “assembly”).
However, the evidence in Acts paints a different picture than what you’re presenting here. Luke uses synagogē 19 times (6:9, 9:2, 9:20, 13:5, 13:14, 13:43, 14:1, 15:21, 17:1, 17:10, 17:17, 18:4, 18:7, 18:19, 18:26, 19:8, 22:19, 24:12, 26:11), and in each one, it refers to, or most likely refers to, a Jewish synagogue. Most contexts are explicit in this regard. At the same time, however, Luke uses ekklēsia 22 times (5:11, 7:38, 8:1, 8:3, 9:31, 11:22, 11:26, 12:1, 12:5, 13:1, 14:23, 14:27, 15:4, 15:22, 15:41, 16:5, 18:22, 19:32, 19:39, 20:17, 20:28), and in most of these it’s a gathering of Messiah/Christ followers in view. There are three exceptions: 7:38 (“[Moses] was in the assembly in the desert.”), 19:32 (angry mob), and 19:39 (“legal assembly”).
The best illustrations of the difference in usage are those in which the two are placed in close proximity. The Council at Jerusalem provides a good example:
Chapter 18 shows how Paul tried to reason with some in the synagogue, and when many grew angry with him, he left to preach to the Gentiles. Following that, he went to the house of Titius Justus, apparently a Messiah/Christ disciple by the context:
This word archisynagōgos, “synagogue ruler”, is also used in Acts 13:15 (in the plural), in which they asked Paul and Barnabas for a message of encouragement. Following Paul’s preaching of the Gospel “many followed Paul and Barnabas”:
And, note the verses following (44-47).
So, it seems to me that the most logical reason Paul uses ekklēsia in Romans is because he is speaking to Messiah/Christ followers – the ekklēsia of/in Rome. This doesn’t necessarily mean that those of the ekklēsia were not attending Jewish synagogues.
Or am I missing something here?
Perhaps it is the function they are involved in that changes the term? Synagogue relating to “worship” and study (mainly) as opposed to ekkesia as a “legal” (rulership) gathering. Just a thought.
Robert,
But that doesn’t fit the relative contexts for ekklēsia. We might think it does in that particular instance at the Jerusalem Council, but the larger context shows that it just means the “church” in general (15:3, 4), and there are many other contexts in which legalities do not play a part. And note 12:5 in which the ekklēsia were praying, which is a form of worship.
Perhaps, but maybe the understanding of “legalities” should be expanded a bit. What I was pointing out is that it’s not just about disputes and such but perhaps a gathering outside the Sabbath gathering where the followers of the way would gather to consider where their resources could be applied in the specific community. That obviously would involve prayer and other activities (eating together, distribution of food, etc.). This is why I put it out for consideration (a thought) I wasn’t intending to debate but, I think it would be a good thing for someone to dig into in order to clarify the differences.
OK, got it.
Considering the evidence, the differences “synagogue” and “church” are such that synagogē refers to the Jewish synagoges, while ekklēsia refers to the assembly known as “Christians” (see Acts 11:26 in my comment @ 8:20 am today), and mathētas refers to the disciples, i.e. followers of Messiah/Christ, aka the ekklēsia. Moreover, “the Way” refers to the “disciples” (i.e. the ekklēsia) here in Acts 9:1-2:
This was just before Saul’s ‘conversion’ experience; and, by the context “synagogues” clearly refers to the Jewish synagogues who were opposed to “the Way”, while the “disciples” here are clearly part of “the Way”. As the other evidence I provided illustrates, the ekklēsia is the “church”, which is made up of “disciples”.
This is getting a little interesting. I wonder if the local synagogue gatherings were only about instruction and worship, and the legal councils (in Judea that would have also meant civil matters, too) were held separately. I mean, prayer service might not have been the right time to decide if somebody had murdered somebody else! Hebrew, Skip says, is about the function. Two types of functions, so two types of gatherings.
Laurita,
I provided the Scripture references in case any sort of discussion would ensue. With that in mind, I suggest you test the hypothesis of ekklēsia = legal proceedings and see if it fits the relative contexts. 19:32 certainly doesn’t, but I suppose one could attempt to explain that as n/a since it doesn’t pertain to ‘the church’. As just one quick example of the 19 non-exceptions, 8:3 seems very difficult to interpret in that manner.
You mean Acts 8;3 where Saul was going door to door, and making life difficult for the “legal proceedings” part of self government, as he was superimposing judgment from without, and not recognizing the correct structure of judging by recognizing the rights of the local assembly? Just tilting at windmills, here…
I’ll forgo comment on that.
Let’s look at Acts 11:26:
Here it seems very difficult to interpret ekklēsia as strictly a ‘legal assembly’. Would we think the text would say that Paul and Barnabas merely gathered together with a subset of the disciples, those involved in ‘legal proceedings’?.
The word above for “disciples” pertains exclusively to Messiah/Christ followers throughout the book of Acts. I didn’t check all 200+ other references – all found exclusively in the 4 Gospels – to see if the usage was consistent, though, even if there are a few that aren’t (disciples of the Baptist, e.g.), it’s clear that the disciples above were, in fact, Christ-followers, i.e, Christianos. And, this is precisely why Paul chose to use ekklēsia in Romans 16, as well as many of his other epistles, most usually in his initial address (see both Corinthian letters, Galatians, Ephesians, both letters to the Thessalonians, and Philemon, as well as throughout these and others of Paul’s epistles).
Ok, Craig, keep leading here. So, if “ekklesia” refers exclusively to “Christ followers”, then, could we say that “synagogue” could refer to when they would gather to worship YHVH in the synagogues, and ekklesia refer to the function of meeting other “Christ followers”, whether within the synagogue setting or a house, say? Ekklesia would not be considered a replacement for the synagogue worship, but, instead, could represent the subset within that synagogue of those followers?
With respect to “synagogue”, one may construe that in some contexts, but in others the synagogue is clearly at odds with “the Way” (e.g. Acts 9:1-2 as in my comment @ 9:57 am today). Moreover, there are times when Paul tries to convince some in the synagogues, and subsequently leaves in frustration (18:5-7, 19:8-10, e.g.).
Also, regarding ekklēsia contexts seem to indicate that the ekklēsia worshiped among themselves, apart from the synagogues (12:5, 14:23, 18:8) Additionally, some of “the Way”, ekklēsia, congregated in houses, and we cannot know for sure either way if they worshiped YHVH or not. It would stand to reason they’d worship wherever they would gather, or even individually, as we do today. However, an argument from silence is never a good argument, so neither you nor I can be dogmatic on this portion.
I’m not disputing that those of “the Way”, the ekklēsia, didn’t attend Jewish synagogues; they most certainly did. And, I don’t deny that they worshiped YHVH. But, do we know for sure that they didn’t consider Jesus as full Deity (monotheistic trinitarianism) and worship in that vein? I don’t know that we can say that for sure.
Clearly, there were those who would not accept Jesus/Yeshua as the Christ, whatever the reason. Note that in Paul’s argumentation at Pisidian Antioch (13:13-41) he references Psalm 2:7, the same verse the writer of Hebrews quoted using much higher christology (the Son heir of “all things”, ‘exact radiance’ of the Father, agent of creation, upholder/sustainer of creation, exalted to the right hand of the Father), and both Paul here and Hebrews speak of Messiah as providing forgiveness of sins / purification for sins.
But, coming back to Romans: Given that ekklēsia is the word used in chapter 16, would we assume that they never worshiped YHWH as part of the ekklēsia? Why does Paul not use “synagogue”?
Well parsed, Craig. I appreciate it. I think the rub comes because some wolves among us have tried to divide us by telling us that you cannot have ekklesia unless you reject synagogue, and, conversely (this is how that nefarious dialectic works) that you cannot have synagogue unless you reject ekklesia. Nowhere in Scripture can I find that the followers rejected synagogue. I do find that they were thrown out of them, however. Sadly, when we can be parted, we can be overcome, and used to destroy each other. Thank you for your time and effort.
You’re welcome!
I should also point out that in 19:32 the adjective ennomos precedes ekklēsia here. Interestingly, I just checked the BDAG lexicon, which states it “could, acc[ording] to the context, mean a legally convened assembly in contrast to a mob, but certain features of the word’s usage . . . suggest the interpr[etation] regular assembly in contrast to one called for a special occasion.” The point is that ekklēsia means assembly, gathering, congregation in general, and by modifying it as Luke does it makes it either a “legal” or “special” assembly, as opposed to just an assemblage of people generally in this particular context.
Sorry, that should have been 19:39.
“Your words here illustrate the continued imposition of a paradigm upon the text before the text is properly exegeted. Nowhere in this context do we find anything related to the Law. Nowhere.”
Craig I see your point, I truly do. But I think your own assertion to the way Robert views Paul’s letter is your same issue. The issue is you view the context of Paul’s words as being the NT writings. And you call that the “context” and you point to this fallacy by quoting more NT scripture and say, “Nowhere…..Nowhere” in context (of this verse) do you find anything related to the Torah (you say law).
Yet the whole context of Paul’s letters and the entire NT, or the New Covenant, IS the Law/Torah.
Jeremiah 31:31-33 The days are coming says YHWH, When I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and with the house of Judah………But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My /Torah/law within them and on their heart I will write it (the Torah/Law); and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Where Robert and Skip are viewing this particular passage from a Torah/Prophets perspective (which is the same perspective that Paul would have been writing from) you view it from a strictly NT perspective. The context of Paul’s letters is the Torah and the Prophets, not the book of Hebrews or Paul’s other letters.
So while I do see your point to Robert (And Skip and many of us on this site) as being a paradigm issue, I believe it is your issue as well. Many of us view the larger context of these passages through a Genesis through Revelation paradigm and you view the context of Genesis through Revelation through a NT paradigm.
David,
I was writing a fuller reply to Robert as made your comment to me. My position isn’t an either/or, it’s both/and (I just quoted Paul who quoted Habakkuk.). Paul himself paraphrases the Prophet Jeremiah in Romans 5:5 (beginning with verse 1 here):
Paul quotes Jeremiah directly in 2 Corinthians 3:2-3 (and maybe elsewhere), as does the writer of the Book of Hebrews in 8:10.
2 Corinthians 6:15-18:
Paul here alludes to or quotes from Isa 52:11; Exekiel 20:34,41; Exodus 4:22; 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:13; Jeremiah 31:33; Isaiah 43:6.
The “New Testament”, Craig, is the ONLY authorized commentary on the Torah, and in that? It was not written the same way as Torah was, it was written by man for the benefit of man. It was only afterwards, YEARS after wards, that it was ‘canonized’, more or less by the catholic church. (see: ask elm.com, Restoring the Original Bible)
The only, ONLY way to correctly interpret the NT is with the mindset of the person writing it, as tho they were writing to YOU in that time, in that culture to address common issue of the day with in that culture.
If it doesn’t say to you what it said to them you are spreading error. You can not discover what the words mean if you do not figure out and step into that paradigm.
Yes. We DO have a SPECIFIC paradigm, we KNOW that, and WE know we don’t have that paradigm 100%, being outsiders….YOU?
You seem to want us to drop the paradigm most of us have picked up at great cost and go BACK to what we discarded, and you seem to discount the huge price we all paid to be where we are. IN OUR OWN HOUSE!!! or, rather, Skip’s,
But…technicalities.
Stop thinking in terms of “Paul” and think “Shaul”, that was his name. He was a hebrew, he lived a hebrew lifestyle. He went 1st to the jews, and then the gentiles, but HE TAUGHT TORAH. Plain and simple. If what you are saying is not Torah, it is error.
Splitting hairs on words doesn’t matter. Torah or nothing.
Period.
Torah has ONE GOD. Period. No discussion. The minute you bring in 3, you are in paganism, and frankly, would have been stoned in Shaul’s time. Fact.
No amount of verbose elocution is going to change that. And make no mistake you are a HIGHLY SKILLED wordsmith, but it won’t get you in the door here.
Per Steve Salter in his book “Galations”, there have always been outsiders who worshipped YHVH, they were called ‘Gerim’ (Strangers). He gives 3 specifics:
Ger Toshav: Stranger in the Land (of Israel)
Ger Ha-Shaar: Stranger in the Gate (of the Jewish people)
Ger Tzaddik: Stranger (Proselyte – Convert)
At this point, Craig, you are in the land….not even at the gate. While we will respect your presence, it’s not up to us to prove anything to you on why we believe as we do. It’s historical, the fact that outsiders don’t ‘get us’.
It’s up to you to decide what you want to believe.
While I also am committed to understanding the apostolic writings in terms of the orthodox, Torah observant men who wrote them, I realize that dialogue is crucial for all of us, and therefore, I welcome Craig’s serious attempts to elucidate the text within the paradigm of Christian teaching. Although I find that the history of doctrinal development departs significantly from the original authors, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth examining, carefully and closely. The only ones I feel probably don’t belong here are those who have so closed their views that they are no longer open to any examination. So, I wouldn’t use quite as strong language with regard to Craig’s views because I was once where he is and the fact that he is willing to engage means that God is working on both of us. As Heschel so rightly observed, “No word is God’s final word.” We go forward, thinking, debating, clarifying.
Please come to the conference on Feb 18 in Winter Garden for a really good face-to-face exploration.
Point taken.
Skip, If I may say this- Craig is not getting replies to his LONG lists of queries, and certainties of his “NT” knowledge. Should we sit quietly by and say nothing when he demands (sounds like that to me) from you, and us to “prove” him in error IF we can?
This “dialogue” has been going on for quite a while now, and will continue in like manner from him.
We, most of us here, do know where he’s coming from, but, we listened and studied, and loved being challenged by you, and you have never “hammered” us with the Word. So appreciate that!
Chag Sukkot Samech!
Actually, Craig gets an awful lot of responses and interaction. He brings up many perspectives that the text and historical-grammatical understanding do bare out. Just because “everyone” isn’t in agreement don’t mean it shouldn’t be looked at and weighed. I see no harm in being encouraged to take a closer look. Even if you don’t agree. The text still is what it is and should be considered, always.
On top of the fact, Skip has already stated his opinion on this issue. While it isn’t necessary that we agree with each other on theology, it is necessary that we allow people to discuss perspectives and to be respectful, again, even if we don’t agree..
That’s my two cents about it anyway.
Hi Mark, Thank you for your two cents.
Right, some of us have responded, but it is going around in circles, going back to the same thoughts/beliefs Craig holds on to, regardless of all the replies. That , I think is presumption on his part, not giving consideration to replies.
Text of NT is NOT what it is!
Only Torah Scriptures faithfully written under guidance of the Ruach of YHWH, 3300 years ago, is to be considered. That was why we owe it to the Jews as believers- we owe a great debt to the Jewish people. whom God chose as the first recipients of His special revelation, His commandments as an instructions for living to be receive His blessings for LIFE. Entrusted them the depository of His sacred oracles.
No religious document has exercised a greater influence on the moral and social life of man than the Divine Proclamation of Human Duty, known as the Decalogue.
“Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22).
Exodus 4:22, “Israel is my son, even my firstborn.”
ROCK of our salvation has ALWAYS been YHWH, The Creator, NO co-creator ever mentioned. Why would YHWH beat around the bush instead of telling us specifically IF there was ANOTHER rock (except Peter). NO Adding to YHWH’s Word, please!
TO THE CHRISTIANS-
1,800 years ago the Torah already existed. The Christians have been using their confused mistranslations of the Tanach at least since the second century C. E., and even trying to prove their mistaken beliefs from the Torah. So the Torah is certainly already in existence for about 1,800 years.
it is quite clear that the Jews had these books, and believed in them, long before Josephus, who lived almost two thousand years ago. The Jews of his time, almost 2,000 years ago, already had all the Written Torah we have today, and believed them to be the originals, just as we believe today.
Going back a little further. Philo (around 20 B.C.E. to around 50 C.E.) also talks about the Books of the Torah, in his work The Life of Moses (II:288-91). He also says that the books of the Torah are very old.
The writings of Josephus and Philo both prove that the Written Torah was already composed by the first century of the Common Era.
Therefore the Torah predates the Judges, and come from the time of Moses and Joshua! That means that we have had the Torah for 3,313 years. And therefore, the Torah tells us that Moses told the Children of Israel:
Only take heed and watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not forget the things that your eyes saw. Do not let this memory leave your hearts, all the days of your lives. Teach your children, and your children’s children about the day you stood before your GOD YHWH at Horeb (Deut. 4:9-10).
We/I worship the GOD of Israel, none other, definitely not man-made idol of Rome, with it’s triune god and trinity.
For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?……LEST YOU BE WISE IN YOUR OWN CONCEITS;
An angel, or a messenger can manifest ONLY for a short time, they have to return at the break of dawn (Jabbok)! They DO have specific names- Gabriel, Raphael, Michael… etc…
End of story! Shalom!
I hear what you’re saying Ester. And you have every right to hold to how you interpret scripture and whether or not you agree that the Apostolic text is authoritative or not. I have the utmost respect for your opinion. However, I and many other people do in fact see the Apostolic text as authoritative and scripture. I do not agree that it conflicts with the Tanach. In it’s substance or context. And I fully affirm with it that Yeshua is in fact, the only physical, actual, Son of God. And that there is no other means for atonement or salvation except through and in that Son. I don’t force that on you or anyone else but, I totally agree and accept it as it says. It says it and I believe and trust it. I leave the judgments in His hands but I affirm the scriptures, all 66 books of them.
As Skip has said, and I personally agree, “I welcome Craig’s serious attempts to elucidate the text within the paradigm of Christian teaching. “. He has posted an awful lot of well thought out comments and has no doubt put a lot of consideration into them. So, in the spirit of open and ongoing discussion, with him or anyone else, I don’t think any of us get to dictate how someone chooses to interact with another, as long as it’s done with respect and a true desire to want to dialogue. I do believe that Craig has been most respectful and interactive with everyone.
I surely don’t want to get into an argument with you over it. I do however see it as the right thing to do, to abide by what Skip has said to do about this. If you feel like a particular discussion you’re involved in isn’t going anywhere, then it’s very easy, to just agree to disagree, and bow out.
Shalom to you and you’re home Ester.
Mark,
Not just getting at you, please don’t misunderstand me, this is a compliment-that I rejoice in your changed attitude these days, in your comments here. You once sounded like Craig when you disagree with Skip’s TW.
Neither patronizing nor condescending is the way to go, but, being humble, and respectful as you said, IS!
Shalom, shalom to you!
Ester,
I’ve never said the TaNaKh, let alone the Torah, was not in existence 3000 years ago. In fact, in stating that the LXX (Septuagint), the Greek translation of the TaNaKh, was written by Jewish rabbis circa 200BC, I’ve implied that it was at least in existence prior to that time, i.e., 2200 years ago. What I did say above in quoting the disparities between the DSS and Masoretic text (the only extant full copies we have of the TaNaKh), is that the text of the TaNaKh was apparently not fixed, for whatever the reasons.
Philo and Josephus merely prove that the TaNaKh existed in some form – again something I do not deny. Yet, Philo does not even reference all the TaNaKh. Moreover, Josephus actually quotes from the New Testament. Josephus refers to Jesus/Yeshua as the Christ (from the Christian perspective, not necessarily his own) and followers of Yeshua as Christianos, Christians.
I’ve also never said anything negating the Torah, the Pentateuch. Do I think the Torah predates the Judges? Of course!
Given your earlier quotes from Noel Rude, he and you at least acknowledge the Gospel of John and the book of Hebrews as authoritative. I don’t have an issue of attempting to interpret the NT in different ways, as Rude has done. However, when the attempts do not fully succeed or cohere, I think it fair to challenge them. You quoted Rude: “The author of the book of Hebrews is emphasizing, in a sophisticated rabbinical fashion, that though the kingship is passed on via a genealogy, the sons of God are sons of the resurrection, just as Jesus said (Luke 20:36)…”. Yet this, and Rude’s exegesis of John 1 cannot be harmonized with the first few verses of the writer of the book of Hebrews, which make that statement that “the Son” – which must be Yeshua as 1:1-4 makes clear and Rude confirms with his own words – and John 1. That is, the Son, i.e. Yeshua, apparently preexists as the agent of creation (Hebrews 1:2), yet Rude claims it’s the Torah which is the agent of creation in John 1:3.
Moreover, as far as I can tell, no one denies that the second “Lord” in Psalm 110:1 refers to the Messiah, yet the context indicates King David calling Messiah (the second “Lord”) “my Lord”. Regarding this, Yeshua asks a very pointed question in Mark 12:37: David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; so in what sense is He his son? This same Psalm is referenced right in the first chapter of Hebrews, in 1:9. How do we interpret this in any way besides the preexistence of “the Son”, the Messiah, Yeshua?
Craig, I am saying precisely that the TANACH comes before the “NT”, therefore if one’s mindset is fixed on preconceived theology, or paradigm, one CANNOT read the Scriptures, by the way is TANACH, one will never read them the way a Hebrew would read them, as the NT comes after!!!
MANY, as in hundreds of years after!
Those-the Jews, would never have that same mindset, unless they have been influenced by Christian theology.
Ps 110 is a Song/mizmor TO David- לְדָוִד
, and NOT mizmor OF David as read and translated, in many Bibles. Thus, reading it as YHWH – יְהוָה says to my master/ adoni-
אָדוֹן (David) ,
” לְדָוִד מִזְמֹור נְאֻם יְהוָה לַֽאדֹנִי שֵׁב לִֽימִינִי עַד־אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶֽיךָ׃”
NO pre-existence what ever is directed, nor meant.
So, NO reading into the text, please.
Again, the Father, is the Father, the son is the son, can’t alter that.
Re-read your Bible with new mindset. If you don’t empty your cup, you can’t re-fill it.
Shalom.
I prefer TaNaKh (or Tanakh), because it’s an acronym for Torah, Nevi’im and Kethuvim (or Kesuvim). The “K” of the latter is sometimes “Ch”; so, I can understand if you prefer Tanach.
I will agree that the Tanakh precedes any of the NT writings. However, with the Messiah’s coming, the New Testament reveals some aspects of the Old Testament which were ‘hidden’. Clearly, no one knew that the expected Messiah was to die on the cross, as is evident by the NT Apostles, most especially Peter who ‘rebuked’ Jesus when He told the Apostles that He was to die. Neither was the Messiah expected to be a suffering servant, yet there it was/is in Isaiah 53 (and others by Isaiah the Prophet), and Psalm 22 is quoted by Jesus on the cross.
I disagree with your assertion that Psalm 110 is TO David. Rather, this is a psalm OF David. To illustrate, I’ll assume your position and plug in the referents “YHWH” and “David” into the text, which will prove that this cannot be so (ESV):
In verse 1 we would have David sitting at YHWH’s right hand. Yet in verse 5 this is reversed with “The Lord” at David’s right hand – a contradiction. Moreover, as Buzzard points out ADONI, which is the Hebrew for “The Lord” in verse 5 never refers to YHWH.
So, no; this is David ‘speaking’. This is a psalm OF David. Understanding it this way yields the following (ESV):
With this understanding, the preexistence of the Messiah is revealed, just as it is revealed in the New Testament revelation, and this NT revelation points back to the OT. As I noted above, Jesus hints at His preexistence with the words in Mark 12:37 referencing Psalm 110:1. Notice that verse 5 of this psalm speaks of this “Lord”, i.e. the Messiah, already at that time at the Father’s right hand, yet verse 6 indicates that at a future time He will judge the nations.
Given this evidence, I ask that you yourself not look at the texts with preconceived notions. You may have missed my earlier comments on this blog which stated that I came to faith late and initially had a very difficult time accepting the idea that Jesus was “God”. I initially understood tritheism – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three separate Gods. It made no sense to my analytical mind. This prompted an earnest search to see if this “Trinity” were so. I determined it was.
bcp,
If we apply your argument about canonization to the Hebrew Bible, the OT, then the Tanakh suffers a worse fate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon
But, let’s reframe the argument in part by using an analogy: For millennia most believed the earth was flat; however, that doesn’t negate the fact that the earth was/is indeed spherical, as was found out later. In the same way, as regards the NT, just because it took a while for Christians to recognize what actually constituted the canon, does not negate the fact that the canon was the inspired word of God at the time pen was put to papyrus, so to speak. An excellent work in this regard is by Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon. Moreover, one cannot overlook such important early works as the late 2nd century Muratorian fragment which lists most of the books of the NT (though the document is incomplete and may reference more potentially) as if they were part of a whole.
The same thing can be said for the doctrine of the Trinity. Just because it took a while to get formal expression (though Tertullian writes of it in his late 2nd century work Against Praxeas), does not negate the fact that the doctrine is found in the Scriptures. Using your words here, The only, ONLY way to correctly interpret the NT is with the mindset of the person writing it, as tho they were writing to YOU in that time, in that culture to address common issue of the day with in that culture we’ll look at Mark 1:2-3:
This is a quote from Isaiah 40:3, in which the referent is YHVH, yet in Mark Lord is applied to the Messiah instead. How do we interpret this from a 1st century Jewish mindset? How do we resolve this seeming contradiction? Similarly, how do we resolve the fact that Saul/Paul, the Jew from Taursus, writes in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 that ‘the Rock’ of Exodus was Christ/Messiah?
The difference between you and I, Craig, is that i have no joy in the debate any more. I just don’t care to compare notes, swing back and forth and dissect what i believe.
I did that, i lost everything in the process, and frankly, it feels sometimes it became more about demonstrating ‘what i know’ then ‘who i serve’. At that point…i quit.
I was married. My (now ex)husband demanded i put him before YHVH and that i believed only what HE ‘taught’ me, he even decreed that i should only THINK approved thoughts. He would counter point me on everything i believed YHVH was teaching me. I’m done with that.
I think your approach here reminded me of his, and for that i sincerely apologize.
I don’t know your journey. I don’t know what you have read or researched or why you are here.
I’m here because Skip offers a perspective different then any other i had ever seen, one that i had come to search out on my own, singularly, that being “what did it say when it was written, to the people it was written to”.
I never enter into theological debate here. It doesn’t enhance my stance before YHVH, it doesn’t make me a stronger believer…i get nothing out of it.
In that, for me, only Torah counts. I just don’t care, really, about all the back and forth. I offered the askelm.com because it was the first place i ever read about the catholic influence, and why, on the Scriptures i read. Frankly, i use a 60 year old bible that i got at an estate sale from a holocaust survivor. It doesn’t even have a NT, and i don’t care.
I have plenty of Scriptures that have the NT, all of the King James. King James is probably the slickest piece of government propaganda ever produced in its sublime teaching of patriarchy and hierarchal leadership that will certainly help a large portion of the believing community submit to the one world government when it shows up.
But i love it. I love the words, the flow, the comfort it brings. Everyone picks their poison. KJ is mine, but i read it with the above understanding.
Skip teaches in one of his lessons, i don’t remember which one that the jewish faith doesn’t go seeking to convert others, but if they come and they demonstrate that they are hungry for what is on the table, they are fed, if they stick around for the whole meal, SOMETIMES they become family, by choice. That’s my approach.
If we were one on one, my response to you would be to go do some more independent reading, research, whatever and then we will chat again.
I wouldn’t use wikipedia as a point of reference if you put a gun to my head and demanded that i do so. At some point everyone has to draw the line and decide…i believe (fill in the blank) and be before YHVH on that level.
Maybe next week, next month, next year…i’ll think differently.
For me to trust the dead sea scrolls i would have to know the people who eeking out the ‘discoveries’, i find it circumspect that these discoveries are now supporting books and ideas long discredited and held in disrepute. Sorry, i just do. And, i’m not into explaining why on a public forum.
This will be my last response. I find that reading more and speaking less is more my style. Thank you for your respectful responses, i will be praying for you.
bcp, that would be my same thoughts exactly, with ALL you have expressed!
Sadly, as Craig, IMHO is not seeking to know, rather, here to convince us we have gone the wrong path.
I won’t be reading his comments, for sure, from now on as he is SO certain/ confident of his knowledge, that no one except our ABBA, can convict him.
So, I am with you in seeking his deliverance from lies.
Shalom to you!
This is one of my favorite teachers on Torah, so refreshing! Listen if you are seeking, and be blessed with the Word of YHWH-
https://youtu.be/xPACTPDlt5U
Sadly, though, Tovia Singer is completely anti-Yeshua and an aggressive anti-missionary.
“Anti missionary” created by Christians who exalt Jesus as equal to YHWH, an insult to the Jews who know better.
“…you read it as though the son is the point of the gospel instead of the conduit of its completion.”
Excellent point, Robert!
Craig
Let’s take a look at the verse…
Paul the servant of Jesus Christ… En route to Damascus he was called… Enter the city and you will be told what to do. Ananias is after this anointed to teach him…
Jesus called Paul and Ananias so they are serving the will or task of Jesus – as explained by Paul later in Eph 2.
Set apart for the gospel of God…concerning his Son which he promised…
Two possibilities here Messiah to save lost sheep or God inscribing our hearts himself.
Did Paul go to the lost sheep, did he go to the gentiles or did he go and explain to both how salvation comes through… Christ in you.
Not the grace dispensation…
What did Jesus teach? Other than uniting as the peculiar people set apart the task of the messiah is this the same Gospel as a new covenant not like the covenant that I made with their fathers…
What was the covenant made with the fathers?
What is the New Covenant, not love God and neighbour as that was part of the old covenant to be a peculiar nation that will inherent the promised land.
Can anyone advice what the gospel of God concerning his Son is. As it was kept secret till the sending of Paul… Yep not even Yeshua proclaimed it as it was not part of his earthly mission.
Christ in you… What exactly does this imply or mean?
Seeker,
Two possibilities here Messiah to save lost sheep or God inscribing our hearts himself.
It’s both! See my comments above – NT Scripture which point to ‘God inscribing our hearts himself’: Romans 5:5, 2 Corinthians 3:2-3, 6:15-18; Hebrews 8:10. He writes the Law on our hearts through Messiah’s propitiatory sacrifice, which, upon belief in Messiah and His resurrection, brings forth the Holy Spirit indwelling so that we become God’s temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16). This includes Jew and Gentile (ethnos).
Is Romans about “grace through faith”? Yes; it’s right there in Romans 1:5,16-17. But, this is not the ‘easy, greasy’ grace that some who are in error proclaim.
You wrote: Can anyone advice what the gospel of God concerning his Son is. As it was kept secret till the sending of Paul… Yep not even Yeshua proclaimed it as it was not part of his earthly mission.
A clue is given in the tearing of the curtain in the Temple separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place. What would be the significance of that event? The Gospel began with the Empty Tomb – the One who was dead is yet alive!
The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were written from a historical perspective – the life of Jesus Christ while He was on the earth. The Gospel of John was written more from a ‘post-Easter’ perspective, specifically adding the bit about the Father and Son sending the Holy Spirit, the Counselor. Acts chronicles the formation of the early church. The Book of Acts begins with Jesus’ ascension and then the promised Holy Spirit comes in Acts 2.
This is for those who believe, those who put faith in Messiah, as this will result in the indwelt Spirit, who will provide the means by which we can keep the covenant (we cannot in our own strength). Messiah said:
The New Covenant is the writing of the Law on the hearts of those with faith to believe. Belief in what exactly? The Empty Tomb, the resurrection, and the promise it brings – the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-16:15). The Holy Spirit provides the means by which we can live out the Law – not in our own strength, but in the Spirit/Messiah/Father.
Thank you Craig.
Let’s forget authors and rewriting the scriptures… Jesus is baptized and John has a vision… My only begotten Son
Paul has a similar light encounter. Yeshua is salvation. Christ is atonement (power and wisdom of God).
That is the Gospel of God…
We are anointed as Jesus was Luke 2 grew in wisdom (not faith) and this is Christ as for the power that is Torah our knowledge and power…
Combining these in our walk of life is an example for others of how God saves.
As I previously said I exegete myself out of shema…
Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus does he state anything else than obedience to what is witnessed and spoken of the will of God as the process to salvation….
Peace and Godly results through what we do.
Mother Teresa had it right Focus only on the one you are currently dealing with…
As for him being before all creation… He was the reason for creation and Adam the intended instrument to manifest him.
That is the Gospel of God I read of in the scriptures. Proclaimed throughout the OT, manifested in Jesus of Nazareth… Is this manifested in us or are we focussing on God not among us… No Immanuel.
Hint Were two or more are gathered (church) in My name there I am in their midst.
Hint Do not say look here or there for the Kingdom of God, it is in your midst.
That is my understanding of God’s revelations of His Son.
Seeker,
I’m not quite sure if I understand you fully here. I detect the possibility that you are making too strong a separation between “Yeshua” and “Christ/Messiah”. By that I mean your juxtaposition of Yeshua is salvation. Christ is atonement (power and wisdom of God). Yes, the name Jesus/Yeshua means “YHVH saves”. Saves from what? Sins. Matthew 1:21:
But, Yeshua is the one and only Christ/Messiah. Messiah is the Savior.
I’m belaboring this only because there is a New Age (neo-Gnostic) belief that Jesus himself received the Christ spirit at baptism providing his own salvation, which in turn provides the example for the salvation of all others. Your former question regarding the meaning of “Christ in you”, gave me further pause and thought that you might be incorporating a variation of an idea such as this into your belief system. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
Yes, Jesus grew in wisdom as any human would (but consider the supra-human wisdom he exhibited in the Temple as a 12 year old); however, He did not need to grow in faith, because Yeshua is the object of our faith.
Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus does he state anything else than obedience to what is witnessed and spoken of the will of God as the process to salvation…
Yes, he does – in His conversation with Nicodemus, and the latter’s need to be ‘born by water (baptism) and Spirit (Holy Spirit)’. “Born by water” is John’s baptism of repentance (see Acts 19:4) “Born of spirit” is what Christians call ‘conversion’ (see Acts 19:4-7) in which the individual believes in the Person of Christ and His atoning work on the cross and subsequent resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15:1-4).
No space here to honestly respond.
Yes difference in divine birth and task and divine empowerment.
Nicodemus chose to follow a path in life as all Jews those days did. Jesus told him in God’s eyes that is not how it works. Need to attain wisdom through application then await God’s tasking to understand God’s kingdom manifestation.John’s baptism is no prerequisite for the new covenant. He was the one preparing the way.
Loved Dr Pryor. Sad he is no longer with us to continue to push the conversation but happy his legacy continues to reach new audiences.
Great stuff to chew on today.
Since Skip quotes Leon Morris in the TW following this one, I’ll quote Morris from the same work (PNTC, pp 36-37) here:
Craig, are we all not prophets of the gospel of Christ? Just reminding each other of alternative views thereby permitting Christ to “grow” in ourselves as we can only change through what we surrender/let go…
Have you ever considered translation issues/agenda, context as to WHO were the letters addressed to, in reference to WHAT problems they were confronting, under WHAT circumstances?
Yes I have. So that I can see your perspective on this, can you point me to something online that indicates a ‘translation agenda’ that illustrates the point you are trying to make?
Craig not that this may help… There is a 760 page pdf on hermeneutics of the bible that was written in the 1800 that discuses’ this and other translation issues. Outdated maybe but still applicable as it entails a lot of what is being said on doctrines, different pagan religions etc. Sorry title at home…
If you can find, the author/title or even a link to the pdf, that would be appreciated.
—-
In general, just so one can understand my perspective on this, I’m already familiar with the King James Only crowd’s claims that all modern Bible versions are corrupted in their use of supposed anti-Christian manuscripts, namely Vaticanus and Sinaiticus – 4th century Alexandrian Greek texts. Having studied the text critical issues, I think the KJVOs are wrong (the strongest adherents’ arguments are self-refuting), though I do think most modern versions lean too heavily on these Alexandrian texts.
As a side note, I understand why Skip prefers to use the NASB – it is the most ‘literal’ of the modern versions (I don’t think it ever translates any pronouns, even when the referent is very obvious). For this reason it reads a bit clumsy; but, it’s generally effective in conveying what the text says (though, like all translations, it can’t help but ‘interpret’ a bit in its translation).
Biblical Hermeneutics
A treatise on interpretation of the old and new testament
Milton S. Terry, S.T.D,
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in Garrett Biblical Institute
1883
Enjoy the read.
Thanks for the info! I found the pdf.
Yes, Seeker, thank you! Fixing to go wading here…
Apologies for the late response. I am enjoying sitting under the Sukkah catching up with my reading, and not online much.
“1Jo 5:7,8 – an example of textual corruption. Even up to the fifth and final edition of Erasmus’ Greek text in 1535, Erasmus occasionally fell prey to pressure from Roman Catholic church authorities to add to subsequent editions phrases and entire verses that he strongly (and rightly) suspected were not part of the original text. Metzger (Ibid., pages 100-101) and others document how Erasmus was manipulated to include what later was translated into the KJV in 1Jo 5:7-8, the following text: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.
Conservative biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142) explains the sad history of how those words were errantly added to Erasmus’ Greek text of 1Jo 5:7-8:
The words [“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.”] omitted in the R.V. [Revised Version, 1881] were no part of the original Greek text, nor yet of the Latin Vulgate in its earliest form. They first appear in the writings of a Spanish Christian leader named Priscillian, who was executed for heresy in A.D. 385. Later they made their way into copies of the Latin text of the Bible. When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the TRINITY (emphasis mine) He replied (rather incautiously) that if he could be shown any Greek manuscript which contained the words, he would include them in his next edition. Unfortunately, a Greek manuscript not more than some twenty years old was produced in which the words appeared: they had been translated into Greek from Latin. Of course, the fact that the only Greek manuscript exhibiting the words belonged to the sixteenth century was in itself an argument against their authenticity, but Erasmus had given his promise, and so in his 1522 edition he included the passage. (To-day one or two other very late Greek manuscripts are known to contain this passages; all others omit it.)”
There are many more, such corruptions, if you will do an online search.
No problem on the late response. We all have a life!
I’m well aware of the textual corruption at 1 John 5:7-8. All modern versions omit this, usually placing a footnote reference here. This is where staunch “King James Only” adherents come in to defend the supposed “Received Text”, the ‘text preserved by God’. They are wrong. See my note above @ October 18, 2016 9:29 pm for more on this.
This is why there’s a discipline called ‘textual criticism’, in which scholars look to the nearly 6000 extant NT Greek manuscripts in an attempt to determine what is most likely the original text.
To put that in perspective, there are, if I recall correctly, manuscripts for Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey numbering somewhere in the teens to twenties. Moreover, there are many more extant manuscripts for NT Greek text than there are of the OT Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text (MT), i.e., it seems we can be more sure to be closer to the original NT Greek text than the MT. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls assisted with textual criticism of the Masoretic Text. See below for a comparison between the LXX (aka Septuagint), which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew by Jewish rabbis circa 200BC and the MT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text
Craig,
**ever so gently** Ester states her apologies due to her being ‘under the sukkah’ and your response “No problem with the late response. We all have a life”.
>sigh<
Ester is observing Sukkoth, a Hebrew Feast that has its roots deep in our way of life; your response demonstrates that you have no idea the depth or intensity this time of year is for those of us who desire to observe.
Please do not be upset, but her statement was more then 'having a life', it demonstrates just WHO her life centers on, by her obedience to a commandment that we observe, that you probably do not believe applies.
It's the difference between what you (currently) believe and what we have come to believe deeply. I don't have any way to do Sukkoth properly, but i do note it prayerfully, as many of us on here do.
No offense intended, please. We don't do sensitivity training here, per se, but i thought i might just point it out because we are in the season where there other feasts that are observed.
After Sukkoth we go immediately into Shemini Atzeret, i think. I'm the village heretic as i actually follow more along the lines of the Karaite observances then the Orthodox ones.
**tiptoes out of the room***
Todah, bcp! Well expressed! You made my day!!
Have a Joyful Sukkoth!
Point taken, though I was not being in any way flippant, just making a general statement (We all have a life outside making blog comments – myself included). And, no offense taken on your comment.
When addressed directly and respectfully you have always come back appropriately.
I think you are a keeper. You are probably as bemused about why you are here as some may be frustrated.
Maybe pray more, read more and stop trying to feed people food they’ve already spit out as untennable. 🙂
“Not what we expected”
Truly, not what we expected, but suspect.
NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, RSV, ASV, and DBY have this TRANSLATION-
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (trust in Him), to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Clearly, it is about the gospel of the power of God’s salvation to those who keep ALL His commandments-Shema-Hear and DO- and His annual appointed times/Feasts and Sabbaths, as Covenant keepers.
Righteousness is “imputed” to us, regardless- “doesn’t matter how we acted before the imputation or after. ” would be rather shocking, as PAUL TEACHES OBEDIENCE of faith, as through out the Bible, therefore, what we do and how live our lives makes a heap of difference, for our own spiritual well-being first, and as a manifestation of God’s Kingdom ways to others.
Chag Sukkot Sameach! Celebrate and rejoice under the Sukkah.
With all the discussions about the Father and the Messiah and who is king and whose good news is being proclaimed it is useful to go back to the models that define terms in the Torah, for example: was Joseph the pharaoh when the pharaoh said “‘You shall be over my house, and all my people shall be ruled according to your word: only in regared to the throne will I be greater than you.’ and Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘ See, I have set you over all the land of Egyp’t” ??? The Encyclopedia Judaica defines “Agency” as “Legal concept wherby the lawful acts of someone authorized by, and acting on behalf of, another are as effective as if performed by the principal”. The Messiah is the AGENT of the Father and is the one we must obey in all that he requires that is according to the legal rulings of the Father. The pagan kings thought that they had become gods because they had authority. The Jewish kings, prophets, priest and the Messiah understood that they were only AGENTS, or adopted sons of the Father and that their messages were only to be followed if they were in complete accord with the covenants. Since Messiah, Y’shua, was totally obedient his words are the words of the Father. Messiah is the visible image of the invisible God because he perfectly obeys his Father in Heaven and is our example of how to be truly HUMAN. Apart from obedience to our Father in Heaven we are just intelligent animals! Because Messiah’s message is totally true to that of the Father we must obey it.
Another analogy of agency in Torah is Moses and his brother, Aaron. As you go through the plagues in Exodus Moses uses his staff and then sometimes directs his brother Aaron to be the AGENT using the same staff and it is then called ‘Aaron’s staff’. In fact it says in Exodus 7:1 “So the LORD said to Moses: ‘See I have made you elohim to to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you. and Aaron your brother shall tell Pharaoh to ……..” Here is the second witness to the definition of AGENCY and how it works in the Torah. Begin to appy this to Y’shua’s words and actions in the Renewed Covenant and lots of dificulties just melt away.
A good addition to this debate. I am always perplexed why Christians think they can tell Jews how to read their own sacred material. I am convinced that we must begin with the view of the orthodox Jewish believer in the first century (as Paul certainly indicates he is one) and work from there. It seems rather arrogant to assume that the church fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries knew how to interpret Jewish scriptures better than those who wrote them to the audience that first heard them.
Agreed.
And, even in that, at the time these things were written, “orthodox” and “jewish” weren’t even a concept. They were Hebrews who believed in one god. One.
Except there’s Michael Heiser’s work on Psalm 82, that i have listened to only partly because it seems to muddy my waters. 😉
I’m not sure most of it is about interpretation as much as defense of a doctrine. (or establishing doctrine) I find much the same today, as much that is put off as “searching for the truth” is, in reality, defense of doctrine that segregates instead of unifies. I’m actually quite impressed with the mental gymnastics involved in defending much of it as, if it were transferred to the sports realm, it certainly would be world class. ?