The Big Ten
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. Philippians 4:8 NASB
Let’s try a summary of the less controversial discoveries we made over these years. Each of these has enormous implications, but each one by itself seems also passé, as if we should have realized this was the case all along but somehow failed to notice it. Here’s my Big Ten:
- His name isn’t Jesus – Matthew 1:1 is the genealogy of a man named Yeshua of the tribe of Judah. Matthew changes the actual genealogy in order to provide a mystical affirmation of Yeshua as the Messiah, but no one in the world of the Jews would have ever called this man by the name “Jesus.” That alone means some serious rethinking of our Christian traditions (like, “Why did they decide to change his name?” for example). The change wasn’t an accident.
- His last name isn’t “Christ.” The meaning of “Messiah” is “anointed one” and there are many messiahs in Scripture. Messiah is a title, not a name. Yeshua is unique because of his calling, not his title. When we read “Jesus Christ” in translation, we often forget that this is a name plus a function, a role he plays. Neither one is divine by itself.
- He’s still Jewish. Born Jewish, raised Jewish, lived Jewish, died Jewish and will return as the Jewish Messiah, not as the universal Man. His Jewish ancestry, culture, worldview and role are never in question in the Bible. But all of this changed when the Church embraced Hellenism. Have you ever wondered why? And have you wondered what it will mean to have a Jewish Messiah reign for 1000 years?
- Ekklesia does NOT mean “church.” There is no “church” in the New Testament. There is another word in the world of first century Greek for religious assembly. It is synagoge, but Paul deliberately doesn’t use this word. In the first century, synagoge did not mean “synagogue” as it does today. There is a very good reason why Paul chooses to use the word ekkelsia, a word for a secular assembly, as the description of those who make up his audience. Do you know why? The point is this: every time we read “church” in Scripture, we are already importing a concept that doesn’t exist in the Bible. Maybe we should try correcting that.
- Salvation doesn’t come by believing in something. Galatians 2:16 is an example of this difference. The Greek is ambiguous. It can be read either “faithfulness of Christ” or “faith in Christ.” But only one way is embraced by the Reformers and contemporary evangelicals in the theological argument when they argue that we must believe something about this man if we are going to be saved. The other way suggests that God’s salvation is the result of the obedience and commitment of Yeshua. It does not depend on you saying some prayer or believing some doctrine. The first way creates some serious problems for the salvation of all those who lived before Yeshua. It causes theologians to talk about retro-active soteriology. The second way says simply that God was always in the saving business and His Messiah demonstrates what this means. You’ll have to decide how you want to look at it, but this much is clear, translators should have at least told you the options.
- The Law (nomos) has not been replaced with grace. The Roman view of law is restriction. Laws limit freedom in the Greek world. That limitation might be necessary for society, but the real man, the true human being, doesn’t need laws. He needs logos and the rational understanding of his own sovereignty. The Hebrew view of law is exactly the opposite. In Hebrew torah is freedom. “A man without the Torah is a slave to his desires,” say the rabbis. When Israel leaves Egypt and discovers what it means to find God’s favor, they become the first people who actually know what God wants. This is freedom. Freedom from anxiety. Freedom from confusion. Freedom from the fear of accidental mistakes. Without law, the world we live in is sheer chaos. So why does Christian doctrine teach us that Jesus’ death on the cross set aside the Torah?
- Not all the Pharisees were bad guys. Politics was just as much as part of the gospel stories as it is a part of the world today. And politics breeds factions. There were plenty of them in the first century. There was no such thing as a monolithic Judaism, but there were lots of ways of living “Jewishly.” Some Pharisees taught the same things as Yeshua. Some didn’t. To categorize all of them (and the Jews in general) as enemies of Yeshua is simply bigotry.
- Jesus didn’t come to die for your sins. He was born to usher in the Kingdom of God, the kingdom of Heaven. He tells Pilate that his purpose is about the Kingdom, not necessarily about salvation. He preached the message of the Kingdom at hand. Paul echoes this in his phrase, “gospel of God.” Of course, that doesn’t mean salvation was not a part of his role. It just means that we truncate the message if we confine it to sinners. After all, “God so loved the cosmos” includes us but is not limited to us. Getting the bigger perspective eliminates some of the overbearing evangelical verbiage. It also helps us realize that God’s effort toward saving men has been around since the very beginning. It didn’t suddenly come into view after the cross.
- Hebrew prophecy is intended not to come true. So remarked Jacob Neusner. The point is that the Hebrew navim (prophets) are not fortune tellers. They don’t prognosticate. They warn. Their words are contingent, as Jonah clearly knew. Hebrew prophecy is not the future read in advance. It is the intention of God unless things change, and the purpose of the prophecy is to encourage change. The Christian fascination about the end times is actually idolatrous because it is inherently based on the idea that future events are already fixed by God and we, with proper insight, can determine what and when these events will occur. This idea throws aside the biblical concept of grace, suggesting that regardless of human actions, God is bound and determined to bring about judgment at a particular time. In the Bible, prophecy is like predicting the weather. Constantly subject to change. In the Church, prophecy is often like pouring concrete. Once in place, it’s simply not going to change.
One other important point needs to be added here. In Hebrew, the meaning of prophecy can only be determined after the events have passed. Maimonides articulated this idea, basically suggesting that the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy is always an activity in the rearview mirror. Since contingency is an integral part of Hebrew prophecy, its fulfillment is conditional, and therefore, cannot be known in advance. We only recognize the fulfillment as a postscript. Then we say, “Oh, that’s what it was about.” This helps us realize why many Jews of the first century did not recognize Yeshua as the Messiah despite knowing the Tanakh.
- Satan was not the serpent in the Garden. The Genesis story is not a Hollywood production. It is a tribal account of the why, who and when God and Man began to interact. As a tribal account, it is written in the symbolic architecture of the audience and that architecture is post Egyptian, not pre-scientific. Furthermore, interpreting the characters, events and objects in the story outside of the worldview of the audience not only employs anachronistic terms, it is a case of pure eisegesis. A text must be interpreted in its own context, and ha-satan does not appear in this story, or for that matter, for a very long time later in the biblical world. Dante might have put him in the Garden, but God didn’t.
Okay, that’s ten. But we really need to add two more, with less elaboration.
- Woman is God’s most important creation. Read Guardian Angel. Any dogma or assembly that doesn’t recognize this is not biblically based. Once again, read Guardian Angel.
- Generational curses are a product of misunderstanding the word pāqad. “Visiting the iniquity” does not mean passing guilt from one generation to the next. I do not need to be forgiven for something my ancestors did. They were accountable, and so am I, but for what we each did, not what someone else did instead of us. pāqad means “to exercise oversight over a subordinate, either in the form of inspecting or of taking action to cause a considerable change in the circumstances of the subordinate, either for the better or for the worse.”[1] Obviously, it does not include the idea of transferred guilt.
In this regard, original sin is simply not a biblical concept. I am not guilty because Adam made a mistake. Augustine and Luther are both guilty of perpetrating this error, but even their mistake does not make me guilty. I might inherit the consequences. That’s what happens in life. But I am not a sinner because of the consequences. I am a sinner because I sinned. Enough said. Go read about pāqad.
Topical Index: twelve corrections
[1] Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 1999 (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (731). Chicago: Moody Press.
amen
What a great way to “spring” into a new beginning of seasonal life as we approach Passover and the equinox. These magnetic 12 cast iron points attract me here every day. Just yesterday I used at least three or four of them to explain to a friend of mine why I don’t attend the Sunday morning service here in the Snowbird park where we live in Florida. The spiritual message that they receive and the political action committee lives they live for the following 6 days are a huge disconnect for many.
As they say, religion and politics don’t mix. They sure got that one right.
As I read the big ten each was like thunder claps. The spirtual sky was clearing the heavens rejoicing. These clouds of deception keep out the light of the kingdom and the nature of the world to come. Poetic imagery aside the philosophical and theological ramifications of these simple tenets could segnificant adjust ones paridgm especially 1,3,6,8,10. If you where to meet my wife Kathryn you would know 11 is self evident…Does the word reformation seem germain considering Rev 11:1-2 ?
One of my grandmothers wanted to call me Chrissy. My mother insisted that she wanted me called by my name and nothing else. So I grew up with this sense that names are important. I call my husband by his full name instead of Matt like most everyone else because when we met he told me his name was Matthew. When I found out that Jesus wasn’t the right name I felt betrayed and angry. Although, the “Jesus” they taught me about in Sunday school bears very little resemblance to the Yeshua of the Bible. I don’t know who that guy is in all the depictions of “Jesus” in the church, but I wish I knew his (or their) names so I could make that right in my mind.
I have a hard time getting the right picture in my head when I read “church” in the Bible. Recently, I’ve been substituting “assembly” but I’m still not sure I’ve got the right idea. At some point in my childhood I got the idea that heaven was going to be nonstop preaching and since I didn’t enjoy the preaching part of church (I was always so sad when the singing part was over!) I wasn’t sure I was going to enjoy heaven. All this undoing of the things I was taught and believed is like trying to break a bad habit! Ten years ago if I had read this list I would have argued with the majority of these 12 points. Now I can easily see the truth in them. Ain’t what I wanna be, ain’t what I’m gonna be, but thank God I ain’t what I was.
I like all the clarifications, and they are necessary, too. Thank you. They get us to turn around and look again. That is refreshing and necessary. But I want to say let us be careful to keep all the babies we find in that bath, too. Here are a few I found:
1. “Jesus” may have been foisted on us, but He answers to that name, as well as a whole lot of others, too.
2. “Christ” as function. “Messiah” as function, too. Titles; not names. Good to keep in mind in our meaningless-name society; but we sure don’t ascribe that function to anybody else now, do we?
3. VERY important to realize that He will always be Jewish. Maitreya, for example, is a universal modern messiah; amorphous and applicable to all nationalities and religions. I think this is Yeshua’s biggest rival today. Maitreya may be embraced by modern mystic Jews, for example, but He is not a Jew.
4. “Ecclesia” may mean “secular assembly” but it was also used to refer to meetings where not only the business of the community got done, but also where the gospel was preached. There is a reason why that gospel had to be preached outside of the synagogues, too, and that had to have been that lost gentiles were not very welcome in the synagogues. The Jews had lost their instructions about evangelizing the world around them. They should have already had ecclesias in place: too bad only the followers of the Way were paying attention.
5. Yes, we are saved because of God’s faith in us; extended to us “while we were yet sinners”, but it is clear that we are saved only through the atonement of Yeshua. We have been given clear instructions about that. When we are told to “only believe in His Name” that does not mean mere cognitive assent! That means our entire trust in God for salvation rests in His Son, and our relationship with that Son. No Son: no Name “given among men”; no salvation. Without that Son, for example, Allah cannot save. Let us not water the message down enough to include those that exclude the Son.
6. Of course the temptation is to set aside Torah so that a person can get by with only “logos and the rational understanding of his own sovereignty”. That Law is directly in the way of the humanism we embraced out of the Renaissance.
7.We sure do like to lump folks; to ignore individuality. But it is as big a mistake to lump all Christians, too, right?
8. We may have been forgiven by the blood of the Lamb “slain from the foundation of the world”, but we needed to see it to believe it. I exclaim with the Baptist “behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world”. We know a: He did die, and b. our sins are taken away by Him. We don’t need to know how. Faith takes care of the rest.
9. Prophecy may be conditional, but it is ALSO prescriptive to the extent that God knows the probability of the human. Isaiah 53 was not messianic prophecy until it was enacted, but it was clear after that. We find no less than 8 references to that passage in the New Testament by those who saw it in hindsight. If I were a betting person, I would bet on the prophecy we find that is based on what is going to happen if people DON’T change a whole lot more than those that are based on the possibility that they will. Thus, the probability that we will see the fulfillment of Revelation is a lot higher than, say, the prophecies of a rebuilt Zion in Ezekiel that looked forward to a repentant Israel. We already know that didn’t happen.
10. The presence and function of ha-satan in the world has been a progressive revelation. He was a lot more visible by the time Yeshua showed up: even more so in the prophetic revelation of time after that. By now, we probably can’t go anywhere that he is not highly present and active in this world. Modern Christianity lives in a little bubble and wears a big set of blinders, too.
11. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” And obvious. Thank you, Skip!
12. I am going to copy your clarification. I appreciate it very much. Guilt is not transferred: we are taught this in both Testaments. BUT, the consequences are transferred, and we should confess (acknowledge and take responsibility for) the iniquity of our forbears if we wish to get rid of those consequences!
Thank you for all the hard work on this one. I stand (and hope) to be corrected on anything. I am a work in progress.
In regards to #12. In the fight against generational curses (or consequences) is it enough to recognize it, take the responsibility of doing things differently and hope that will be enough to end it? How can someone end the cycle of abuse or the propensity toward addiction? If it ends with me will it show up again in my children or grandchildren?
I wrestle with this and wish I was a fountain of results, but am still slogging. I have noticed a few things, I think. One: I knew instantly when my parents took responsibility. A big heavy cloud would lift. My children have communicated such to me, too. Oppression is very real. Two: I got pregnant with my kids early, and they suffered along with me, but where sin abounds, grace does, too. They did not choose the choices that they suffered the results of: in other words, to the extent they were not complicit in the sin, they would experience relief when I did. However, in temptation, they would go ‘check out’ what the parents did in that place, as a default, first. You see addictive choices ‘passed down’ this way. If the child does not learn a new way, he will have to experience for him or herself WHY that way does not work. the excuses of the parents can become the excuses of the kids.
One of the best ways to protect the offspring, I think, is not only to confess TO THEM your sins, but share with them your salvation; that is to say, what works instead. Also, you can share why that sin is stupid, and why righteousness makes much more sense. This is how to take responsibility. The best way, however, like the saying goes, to ‘get revenge’ is to live a good life: to walk in freedom. When those in your force field of influence are ready to check freedom out, they will know where to go because you would have already sent them an RSVP.
P.S. I want to clarify a niggling detail about the word “confession”. (I would sure appreciate anything anybody else, sees, too!)
I think we were taught a definition (use) of the word by the RCC that is not correct. They say the word “confession” when they are referring to the ACTION of repentance. Hence, you go to “confession” to repent. Well, I can confess my sin to the world (and am told to do so to the extent it affects that world), but I am told that I must only REPENT to God alone, for repentance is about restoration.
Even when I ask those I have wronged for forgiveness, I don’t ask them to get rid of my sin. Reason being they cannot repair (restore) the damage. Confession returns responsibility back to the point where choice abandoned it, but repentance follows the resulting fracture that occurred when that responsibility got dropped, all the way back to the true break point.
When love gets broken, it breaks from the top, because that is the only Source for it. We repent to the Source because that is where the real damage occurred. Repentance for sin to God is the only way fractured connections get restored. That restoration of connection is the essence of what grace does. (Of course, the RCC claims it is the sole dispensary of grace, too. Hmm)
I have noticed that a hallmark of false religions is that, while they may acknowledge sin and have creative ways to handle sin, none of them actually get RID of the consequences of sin: the ‘payment’ goes on and on and on… I think it is because the love that got broken is not repaired (forgiven). Thus, in false religions, even the word “forgiveness” does not mean what it means, either. I have noticed only the God of the Bible can truly effectuate grace (full restoration), even if the world tries to appropriate that word, too. To acknowledge sin (confession) is only half the cure. Repentance is the only way to actually get rid of it. That, apparently, only God can do, so we must go only to Him to get it done.
Therefore, the next time somebody says to you that they can ‘forgive’ your sin, ask them how they are going to get rid of it: can you go along with them on their oceanliner journey to throw it into the sea, or will they demonstrate their ability to remove it “as far as the east is from the west”, but, most importantly, can they “restore the years the locust has eaten”?
True forgiveness is about true restoration, but that cannot happen unless there has been true obliteration of the problem – neither of which anybody can do; this side of heaven, anyway.
Wait a bit. I am reading material now about a forensic investigation of the words and actions typically called “repentance.” Things are not what they seem.
I don’t know exactly what burped that up, either! I just got my collar hot and that came out. I have been confused my whole life, I guess, about the forensics, as you say, and realized there may be reasons why I am confused, too. If you could do a TW on the repentance we are called to, and how it works, I would sure appreciate it!
I have spent some time on this and am led to share what I have so far. It may change as my understanding grows. I pray it helps a little.
We are not conceived as sinful beings. We are born into a world ruled by sin (the devil and his angels – 2 Cor 4:4; Luke 4:6) and sinful people. We are fearfully and wonderfully made by YHVH. Yet, from the moment of conception we are governed by both the physical genetics of our parents and also their spiritual history.
There are physical problems that are said to be genetic or inherited, like diabetes, heart disease, mental illness, etc. Certain cancers run in families. If your aunts and uncles all lived to be past 90, you can be pretty sure you will have a long life. This makes sense to us physically, but when it comes to dealing with spiritual junk that has been passed down, we balk. Why is that? The same way you inherit physical traits from your forefathers – you have dad’s nose and grandma’s chin – you also inherit spiritual traits.
Each of the following scriptures speak about rejecting YHVH and they each recount consequences of the sins of the fathers reaped by the descendants: Ex 20:5,6; Lev 26:39-42; Deut 4:40; Deut ch. 6&7; Deut 29:26-29; Neh 1:5-8; Neh 9; Jer 3:22-25; Jer 14:20; Psalm 78; Psalm 79:8.
The children are not punished for the sins of the fathers. This is made perfectly clear, however, scripture also states that the fathers who do not walk in His ways, will pass those ways onto their children who will be held accountable. The law of sowing and reaping is not just agricultural in scope.
Consider the law of sowing and reaping of sin: 1) you will reap what you sow – apple seeds produce apples, barley seeds produce barley, the seeds of bitterness will produce bitterness, seeds of fear will produce fear 2) you will always reap more than you sow, 30, 60,100 fold (increase in sin) 3) you will reap in a different season than you sow (successive generations) Pro 22:8 – He who sows iniquity will reap vanity. Obedience to the ways of YHVH brings life and blessing. The children not taught to walk in His ways will suffer the consequences.
If you do not hearken unto the voice of the LORD your God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day … Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body. Deut 28:15-18. Does this mean YHVH curses children? No, it means they will reap the consequences of the parents not hearkening to the voice of YHVH.
Wherefore hath the LORD pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God? Then you will say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law. You, too, have done evil, more than your forefathers. Jer 16:10-12
The descendants of Israel separated themselves from all foreigners, and stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers (Nehemiah 9:2. See also Leviticus 26:40; Jeremiah 3:25, 14:20).
Psalm 78 helped clear this up for me when I was agonizing over my sons and the curse of freemasonry that had been passed on to me and to them by extension, through my ancestors. Abba led me to this passage, verses 5-7: For He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers that they should teach them to their children, that the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, that they may arise and tell them to their children, that they should put their confidence in YHVH, and not forget the works of YHVH, but keep His commandments, [now here is the part that I love] and not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that did not prepare its heart and whose spirit was not faithful to YHVH.
I did confess the sins of my fathers and mothers and repented of what I had “inherited” because they did not walk in the ways of YHVH. I did this because I see it applied in Scripture and I was filled with the Father’s pleasure for taking responsibility in this. Sometime later as I was given the privilege of praying through some issues with my 35 year old son, Abba showed me that the ground I had cleared through confession, repentance and YHVH’s forgiveness was no longer on the table for my son. I heard Him speak to my spirit, “See, it does make a difference.” Each of us, including our children, will be held accountable for what we do with what we know.
Sister, I love who you are!, BUT one day as my eyes were opened so shall yours be. Believe in G-d for in HIM is life. I have been BLESSED! So shall you be!!
Great TW!
Thank you Skip for this concise simplification of your big 10. You’re a magnificent writer but sometimes I get lost with all the words. I’m a bottom line kind of gal and this type of presentation is so helpful to me.
And thank you Laurita. Your contribution is a good example of why community discussion is super-D-duper valuable in broadening perspective, clarifying and challenging a topic. We need that!
You know, Tanya, it would be terrible if any of us ‘had it all’. Like some wise person here said; “if two people are perfectly agreed, one of them is unnecessary”, or something like that. I don’t think there is any risk of any of us being unnecessary! Even Skip!
I am thinking that # 4 is supposed to say, “Ekklesia does NOT mean “church.”
(or am I completely confused?)
Here, Here, I concur!
YES, that’s right. Did I miss that somehow? Will fix it immediately!!!
Thank you, Daniel. I was thinking the same thing but figured I was missing the point since no one else mentioned it.
I agree Yeshua’s obedience to Torah was perfection that’s a given.No man before or after can ever do it. If we could we would have no need for him. What he did in death and ressurection is so profound it takes your breath away.Could any of us have the power to reveal who the entities of darkness really are and tell them your done ,your in total defeat ,your history and by the way I defeated death for those who love and obey me just wait ,but for you utter destruction not even a remembrance of you. Now that’s what I call hope. As far as eschatology could not agree with your more. When it comes to revelation 20 the view you take depends on what scriptures you juxtapose into it and all views to me at this time seem sketchy and loopholes everywhere.Its Like if the devil would of known he would not of crucified Yeshua so apparently YHWH doesn’t reveal everything until the fullness of time so stop guessing. Take the time NOW to love ,obey and keep his commandents.
Well articulated summary of a lifetime of study. Thanks Skip. I wish I had this perspective 30 years ago. My only critique is that I’m not sure that #4 is fully on the mark. I’m not sure how understanding ekklesia as a secular assembly makes sense in the context of first century Judaism. Certainly “Church” is a biased mistranslation of the original. However, it is just as likely that Paul was thinking Hebrew Greek (LXX), not Koine Greek. Ekklesia is frequently the translation of the Hebrew kahal in the LXX. A first century (diaspora) Jew would likely (and immediately) have understood that Paul was referring to the kahal of Israel. A careful reading of the LXX compared to the Hebrew text makes this apparent. (Ps. 22:22-24 (quoted in Heb. 2:12], Dt. 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 20:19; 23:2-4, 9; 1 Chr. 28:8; 29:20, Mic. 2:5) Ekklesia is the consistent translation from Kahal in those passages. And it is unmistakeable that kahal/ekklesia is referring to the assembly of Israel, a covenant Torah-observant (and religious) community. Just my two cents (borrowed from Gruber). Any thoughts?
Read further comments here. I am not saying ekklesia means secular assembly FOR PAUL. What I am saying is that Paul uses ekklesia in a way it was NOT used in classical Greek, and he does so on purpose. For PAUL it means the Messianic assembly, but the reason it means that is because he redefines the term. See the other comments on the blog.
I wrote about this a long time ago. It’s in the Today’s Word stuff.
Wow! – your Bible appears to be missing a lot of verses!
Hi Terry could you explain a little more, not quite sure to whom or what you are referring too. Thanks, much appreciated.
I understand that Christ is about the calling… And not taking away everyone’s sins but rather introducing a path or lifestyle he referred to as taking up the cross while Paul referred to it as Apostleship.
Then the very interesting comment of assembly not referring to synagogue but something else. May I suggest this was the unique assembly of those tasked or called to reinforce and share in the progress they made on their assignments… Let’s say a feedback and motivational gathering of reinforcement.
Now this sounds a lot like a gathering of Rabbi’s as I understand to clarify inconsistencies in teachings before daring to give another teaching. Paul referred to it as breaking of bread, Yeshua made the comment least we eat of his flesh and drink of his blood we will not be risen in the last days. This all sounds as if the NT is rather setting the foundations for this eating and drinking assemblies rather than attending synagogues. David put it simpler when brethren live together God commands his blessings.
Not a new church principle but the establishing of a brotherhood focussing on teaching redemption by accepting the calling to be guided by the spirit of God…
The point about ekklesia is that in the Gentile world this is a NON-religious assembly. Why would Paul use this word rather than the word for religious assembly. Because SYNAGOGE meant ANY religious assembly (not the way we use the word today) and that included the religious assembly of Zeus, Dianna, Athena, etc. So the Gentiles hearing the Greek word SYNAGOGE would think of the pagan assemblies. Therefore Paul uses a word that does NOT have religious affiliation and redefines it to mean assembly of the Messiah.
I think this is a distinction without a difference. Paul wasn’t attempting to redefine the term. He was attempting to use it in a normative sense–the way an Israelite would have understood it, just like it was used in the Greek Tanakh/Septuagint, the classical Greek usage notwithstanding. Remember, Paul spent considerable time educating his audience (except in the case of Romans) in the ways of Tanakh to begin with.
Skip thank you for clarifying.
Thank you Skip for your thought-provoking depth of succinctness!
Laurita, this may be far afield but it is another thought on the word ‘confession.’ My thinking was broadened when I began looking at the profundity of the Hebrew word towdah. One peek shows the translation choices differ greatly in English. Example: Psalm 50:23 uses ‘praise’ in the KJ while the Tehillim chooses ‘confession.’ A line of the commentary there says, “This word can also be taken in its literal sense of a thanksgiving sacrifice. If so, the Psalmist declares that God prefers such an expression of sincere appreciation of His goodness far more than all other offerings which come to atone for sin.”
P.S. Skip: I have found Guardian Angel can be an inspiring engagement congratulations gift.
I just added “towdah” to my study list today, Patricia. Thank you very much!
Re: #5 (Salvation)…I’m currently doing a study in Leviticus and the sacrificial system. It’s been enlightening. “In theTorah, blood contains the living soul of a creature, whether human or animal, referred to as our “nefesh…a word translated as soul. But it doesn’t necessarily mean the divine soul that lives on after death. It can simply refer to the spark of life that animates our flesh…the animal soul. The blood can be said to contain this soul because when one’s blood spills from the body, it’s life leaves with it. In this respect, the Torah uses the word nefesh in the way we sometimes use the word life. So, as the priest splashed the animal’s blood upon the altar, he actually applied the animal’s nefesh to the altar. And, because the one bringing the sacrifice had laid it hands on the animal, the LORD regarded the animal’s blood, (it’s soul,) as the individual worshiper’s. In God’s eyes, it was as if the nefesh of the man was applied to the altar. In the ancient world, the altar was like a mystical portal between the realm of man and the realm of the divine. Whatever touched the altar became holy (ritually set apart) to God and entered His presence. As the sacrifice ascended in smoke to God, the animal’s blood (the offerer’s soul) symbolically entered the presence of God. In short, the soul of the worshiper came near to God in his holy place…they could “approach” God. Sacrifice is about life, not death. So, in the Torah, the soul and the blood of the animal, NOT it’s death, brought the unworthy mortal close to God. The sacrifice vicariously brought the worshiper into the presence of God.
Yeshua is our korban (sacrifice) for the eternal Sanctuary above. He is the unblemished, perfect and sinless one that brings us near and into the presence of God. By confessing His name and entering His salvation, we identify with Him, much as a man identified with the sacrificial animal he brought to the Temple. We identify with our Master in that we consider ourselves to have died and risen with him. Through Yeshua, His disciples will draw near to God in the heavenly Temple and the World to Come. He is more than a scapegoat. He brings us into the presence of His Father. That’s a function of His life. His death would have availed nothing had He not risen. His death was a necessary means toward an end…the shedding and sprinkling of the blood by which He made atonement. In other words, it is the life of the living Messiah that brings us near to God.” “Depths of Torah” Book 3, p. 878-82
OH MY STARS, Judi. That blew me away. Thank you for sharing! There is soooo much in Leviticus. Praise to YHVH!
Spot on Laurita! I would add, in regard to the name Jesus. Of course, His name wasn’t Jesus. Jesus is nothing more or less than an English translation of the Greek. And the Greek was just the way it was translated from the Hebrew. It’s not a conspiracy and it’s not a foul it just is what it is. As you pointed out Laurita, He most definitely answers when people cry out with the name Jesus.
I will also add that our “salvation”, which literally is “Yeshua”, ONLY comes to us via the very real blood He shed on that stake at that time. We’d just have to toss out or dance around far too much scripture given to us by Him personally and those whom He discipled to think otherwise.
And He wasn’t just “any” Messiah, He was and is THEE Messiah.
That’s my 2 cents anyway… Other than that, great TW! I wholeheartedly agree with Numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 and 12.
Mark, true our God does answer to honest and from the heart compassionate prayers irrespective of how we deliver it; In the name of Jesus. Our heavenly Father etc.
I understand from the teachings of Yeshua that it is not about his identity (name per se) but rather about his teachings and way of doing things. Those who adhere to his teachings he and God make abode in. Not those that call on his name but those that drink and eat of his blood… A much deeper meaning than the Redeemer of Israel (Those choosing to serve God above man and his views) that changed the view of many individuals both believers and gentiles.
As John reiterated in Revelation the prophetic reasoning of Jesus Christ is our means to salvation. Or as Paul explained when we die off our old man or ways and be clothed or embodied with the new man in Christ (the prophetic reasoning and teachings being kept and manifested in our lives) we have a living mediator or passage way to God. Not the individual but rather what he stood for.
My 2 cents thoughts.
I have been thinking a lot about this teaching Skip, which is what your teachings make us do but there is one thing I cannot get my head around.That is where you said that Ha Satan was not in the garden with Adam and Chava, which is so different to what we have always been taught. How then do you interpret Genesis 3: 14-15? “He shall crush your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”
Would you be able to elaborate in a further teaching how you came to this conclusion.
OK. First, the character of Ha-satan isn’t introduced into the Bible until later, and then only as a representative in the divine council. It is an OFFICE, not a person. IN fact the term is also used of human beings But . . .
Second, the audience of the story of Genesis is the children of Israel coming out of Egypt. Is there a “Ha-satan” character in their world? No. How would they interpret the “person” who stands against God, wants to undermine God’s purposes, put the original human beings created by god black into slavery by trickery, and WEARS a snake head as his symbol of power? Who do you think they would see in the “serpent”?
Are you implying that Moses ‘made up’ Genesis, or was he more likely to have recorded ancient oral history, handed down from multiple accounts?
Are you implying that the Genesis account ‘needed’ to employ a symbolic pharoah figure to – well, what WOULD have that accomplished, exactly?
Are you implying that the serpent symbol was an original figure that evil invented or was it more likely that it only copied or even lifted verbatim that earlier, oral account?
Which is more likely?
Have you looked at false religions lately? The majority of them employ a serpent of some sort. Now, is that an original invention, or is it an acknowledgment of something larger?
Which is more likely?
Have you gone to the trouble to look at what that world of those false religions has to say for itself about that serpent? Read Blavatsky lately?
What I am suggesting is that these arguments may not go very far – or may even go in a very unexpected direction – if you tried them on anyone other than naive people who have only been exposed to the Bible.
If evil invented a serpent out of nowhere it would have been a huge first for evil. Evil can only pervert what is already there. It has been pathetically trying to be original for millennia, and hasn’t succeeded yet.
I doubt the serpent was original to Egypt, as I doubt that Moses drafted Genesis around a bunch of slaves. From what I have seen posited of the average ability of the ancient mind, people in those days didn’t have writing because their memories were too good, not because they had lost the ability to remember what was for them a very recent history. We need smart phones, but from what I have read, it was nothing for folks back then to memorize Homer – I mean, how long was it before even Homer was written down out of that oral history? A thousand years? It wasn’t because people didn’t remember – it was because they did.
Thank you for the questions Laurita. The interesting part is that the serpent was one of the functions of the rod Moses used as well as the cause of death and curing of the people that exited Egypt…
Laurita thank you for the reference to Blavatsky it was an interesting reading and could be good for all to read before researching religion.
Blavatsky is widely considered the premier occultist of the modern age; her original publication of Isis Unveiled (which cannot now be found anywhere but in the hands of top occultists) is the bible on the pulpit of all the Masonic lodges today. If she said it, it is definitive when it comes to that particular (occultic) subject. She wrote the book, so to speak. It is amazing that all false religions are so much alike at the core. Blavatsky represents that core.
But she did s good research for her time and it was fascinating to read of all the core views that link to 10… Just to begin with. As well the use of modern words which I thought where current age words axion, avatar etc. She must have been a well informed and learnt lady….
She claimed all she wrote was through channeling – that she wrote words that were not from herself; words about things she had never learned or thought.
Something like me discussing biblical views, we rely on assumptions til we are proven wrong. Until then all truths remain debatable. The 10 and alpha and omega and male and female all fit this possibility as does apostle and prophet… Just another view.
She certainly represent that core.
Thank you for this summary Skip! This is awesome and I have shared to my FB wall. I love all the explanations you have in written, audio and video that I’ve read so far and they have truly been eye opening and immensely helpful! So, a “super summary” like this one is great for an “at a glance” type of overview.
Just a thought. Have you ever thought about doing something like this summary (keeping the same format) but with hyperlinks to lengthier explanations at the end of each point? I really think what you’ve got here is great, however, links to your in depth explanations, that you’ve written in the past, may be helpful for some people. Anyway, as I said, just a thought.
Interesting idea, hyperlinks. I’ll think about it. Thanks.