A Philosophy of Sin
You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. Romans 8:9 (NIV)
Sinful Nature – The NIV takes theological liberty with the Greek text by translating the Greek word sarx as “sinful nature” rather than “flesh.” The translation committee had a prior theological understanding of the doctrine of sin and this understanding shaped the way they treated the word. But the idea of sinful nature stands in contrast to the Hebraic concept of sin and since Paul (Sha’ul) is a Jewish rabbi, it is very unlikely that he would have adopted a view of sin that is not reflected in the Torah. That means we need to reconsider our idea of sin if we have been influenced by the Greek-Christian view.
Abraham Heschel comments on this crucial revision. “There is an awareness in many religions of a blindly working guilt, of sin as a situation in which man is begotten, of sin which is involved in man’s very being and stands far above the ability of the individual man. Sin is not conceived as something that happens, but as something that is and obtains regardless of man’s relationship to the gods. ‘Since we are what we ought not to be, we also necessarily do what we ought not to do. Therefore, we need a complete transformation of our mind and nature. That is the new birth.’ . . . To the prophets, sin is not an ultimate, irreducible or independent condition, but rather a disturbance in the relationship between God and man; it is an adverb not a noun, a condition that can be surmounted by man’s return and God’s forgiveness.”[1]
Did you notice that the grammar changes the theology? What’s the difference between an adverb and a noun. An adverb expresses a relation of circumstance, manner or cause. A noun expresses an actual state, substance or thing. If sin is an adverb, it is about a relation between God and man. If it is a noun, then it exists as an entity in itself. Do you see the difference? We often speak of sin as if it had independent existence, as if it were some kind of spiritual condition or substance. In other words, my sin becomes a “thing,” something I have like my gender or eye color. But in Hebrew, sin isn’t a thing. It is a relation that occurs between God and me. It happens. It is a dynamic that changes with the actions involved. My sin is not something that inheres in me. It is a description of a present condition of my relationship. When I am acting in accordance with the image of God, I experience right relation. When I act against His character, I experience broken relation or sin. Clearly, the experience of sin is directly connected to my actions (thoughts and deeds), not to my simply being alive. Repentance is a return to actions that bring about right relation. Sin happens. So does righteousness. It depends on what I am doing.
Obviously, God has something to say about the relationship between sin and righteousness. That is another discussion. For now we need to realize that sin is a function of behavior. It is not a quantity that must be removed or a substance that I am born with. It is all about what I do – each and every day. God says He will never alter His willingness to bring me into right relationship with Him. He will always accept my decision to turn to Him. But I have to choose what I am going to do about His invitation. What I choose to do either encourages the relationship or frustrates it. Even James assumes this dynamic when he says that sin is knowing what is the right thing to do and not doing it.
Today you can live in right relation. Today you can choose not to frustrate your relationship with God. Today you can be free of sinful actions. Just do the right thing.
Topical Index: sinful nature, sarx, theological assumptions, Romans 8:9
[1] Abraham Heschel, The Prophets, Vol. 2, p 8.
Sorry that I’m confused…. again. If sin is a descriptor for a state of the relationship I have with God (when I choose to do it my way instead of him), and to change that relationship I have to repent (turn away), where does the whole sacrifice thing come into it?
Is it because, even if I’m sorry and turn away in order to not do it again, someone needed to pay for the crime? Or is it because my actions were willfully done (some of them, anyway), and there is no provision except for Yeshua for dealing with those actions and returning me to right relationship with God? Obviously, there was a need for Yeshua’s sacrifice or else God would never have done it. It clearly changed the way the relationship worked. But if repentance is as simple as turning away and doing the right thing (because God will never refuse my willingness to return to Him), how does it all work with the need for a sacrifice?
I’m sorry for the basic question. I’m guessing there’s (probably) an obvious answer. But, I’m rebuilding my foundation after having it completely discombobulated by everything I’m learning. Thanks for being patient. 🙂
Shalom Amanda,
17,11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. 17,12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel: No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
Atonement and being able to approach the Living and Holy G_D can not be achieved on our own. It takes the death/sacrifice of innocent blood to cleanse us of our transgression. Hence the sacrificial offering of unblemished animals as a shadow of the ONE WHO would come and offer perfect atonement … a spotless peace offering … YESHUA … our yovel!
The sacrifice enables us to draw near; without atonement the transgression keeps us from approaching a perfect and holy ELOHIM. If we approach presumptuously (like Aharon’s sons) then we will be smoked!
A short answer for you anyway! 🙂
Brachot
A short CHRISTIAN answer, maybe. From a Hebrew perspective, the Leviticus passage is not talking about an atonement exclusively obtained through blood, but is simply information – i.e. “don’t ingest blood”.
–A short CHRISTIAN answer, maybe. From a Hebrew perspective, the Leviticus passage is not talking about an atonement exclusively obtained through blood, but is simply information – i.e. “don’t ingest blood”.–
Wow! 38 comments this morning- very exciting,- praise G-d! We’ll just have us a “cyber-revival”- lol!
A very good point brother Ian (and Drew). We really need to “camp-out” here (help!-brother Skip!) and fully explore “atonement” and “propitiation.”
The promised Son of David has come! – The eternal “I AM”
The next day, Yochanan saw Yeshua coming toward him and said, “Look! God’s (Passover) Lamb! The one who is taking away the sin of the world! This is the man I was talking about when I said, `After me is coming someone who has come to rank above me, because He existed before me.’ I myself did not know who he was, but the reason I came immersing with water was so that He might be made known to Isra’el.” (Yochanan 1:29-31)
-so that He might be made known to Isra’el-
Now do you understand why Yeshua wept?
Each day brother Skip, as we go deeper into the word of G-d together we gain a further understanding of this “grace in which we stand” (Romans 5.2)
The word we focus on today is “sarx.” “Flesh.” Let us focus on the original, intended meaning of this word rather than how many English translations got it wrong- let’s do something novel, and focus on “truth” rather than point the finger at all the error out there. (there is certainly no shortage of error!)
Let us follow truth, and not waste time on that which is worthless.
http://bible.cc/romans/8-9.htm shows many “English” translations also “got it right.” Should we then also take time to applaud them?
If we are to study the words of YHWH, then let us focus on that which is true. “Sarx” is “flesh.” A chunk of meat. I will agree “words” do matter. “Sinful nature” is a long way from “sarx.”
“Everyone learns from someone”- we weren’t born knowing everything. I see Abraham Heschel is one of your favorites. You quote from Him often. “Abraham Heschel” said..
Skip, we want to know what the word of G-d says. We have left one rabbit trail- the trail marked “sinful nature”, found the trail of truth marked “sarx”, and then left this trail to hear what Abraham Heschel has to say about “sin.”
What does “sarx” have to do with “sin?” Is “sarx” (flesh), -sinful? There are many varieties of “sarx” in this world. Not all of them are human. Are these “sinful” as well? “Sarx”- “flesh”-“meat.” I had some chicken “sarx” last for dinner. It was delicious,- hope it wasn’t sinful.
When I die, I will leave a stone-cold lifeless chunk of “sarx”, behind. “That which is flesh” is just that- flesh. A mound of meat. -Nothing inherently evil about meat, (unless you’re a Vegan.)
What gives us life? What “animates” us? -“the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2.7) -I think it may be time for each of us to pause and give our Maker thanks for our breathings. “It is the Spirit (breath) that gives life. – What happens to us when we “breathe our last?” What remains to immediately start to decay and rot?- “Sarx” (Now) -lifeless flesh. The body (sarx) without the spirit (breath) is dead (lifeless).
So the “doctrine” of original sin is false? How does that relate to Job’s comment that “in sin did my mother conceive me”? (May not be exact – from memory!)
-So the “doctrine” of original sin is false? How does that relate to Job’s comment that “in sin did my mother conceive me”? (May not be exact – from memory!)
Good morning John. Sin is not a doctrine, it is a reality. Pages and books have been written concerning sin, but “today’s word”- “sin”, (-not sarx!) was excellent! Also brother Ian’s comment about “lawlessness” was right on the money as well. This statement from Job was a part of His confession to YHWH, “LORD,I am a sinner.” This, as far as we can tell by his story (written in the book), was a confession from a good man. A just man and a righteous man. We just don’t see Job did anything wrong. He was a “good” man.
His “friends” came alongside him to “accuse”, er.. help him. “So, Job, what did you do wrong for G-d to curse you like this?” (As I recall, his wounds and sickness were from another source). Job’s wife, his ‘ezer wasn’t a great comfort either, -“curse G-d and die.” (great advise, lady..)
Then G-d shows up. (this is the good part!) It’s always good when we encounter G-d. It changes your life! Ask Rabbi Sha’ul, ask Isaiah, ask Skip. It’s good.
Job saw something that day. Something about G-d he never had thought of, until YHWH revealed it unto him. When Job saw this, then came His confession.
When and how did Job meet Him? Amazingly today, -thousands of years and miles later, we meet Him the same way.
Carl – I agree, but I was talking about “original sin” and right or wrong, it is a doctrine espoused by many in the Christian church, theologians and non-theologians alike!
Yes, the doctrine of “original sin” is a major part of the Federal headship of Adam theology (and others). But isn’t it interesting that Judaism had the same Scriptures for three thousand years before Christianity and yet it does not have a doctrine of original sin. Makes you wonder where the doctrine came from, doesn’t it? A little historical investigation will show you that the doctrine’s metaphysical foundation is in Plato, not Moses. This is particularly important because it changes our view of the nature of Man and the purpose of restoration. There is a lot more to say about this.
Until you answer some of this, our minds will wander! 🙂
What’s the alternative to original sin? Original righteousness? Or Original neutrality?
In the Hebrew worldview as I understand it, you can’t commit a sin until you are old enough to understand the moral consequences; probably around 12 or 13 years old.
See Judaism 101
“Judaism completely rejects the doctrine of original sin.”
Your logic here raises an interesting question: According to Yeshua, Judaism had the Scriptures for 3,000 years and they didn’t recognize him, nor, according to him, did they really follow Moses or the Prophets. And he went further and said that because they did not rightly understand Moses or the Prophets, they would never accept “facts” such as someone rising from the dead. Interesting philosophical argument.
It seems the real issue is not 3,00 years, but this question: What do the Scriptures say? And how do we know?
Hi All – we’re back! We had a great Festival and relaxing Shabbat… and hope that those of you who keep these did so too.
I have no idea where this will appear on the page – it seems that after a few ‘replies’ that the ‘reply button’ disappears. (It is supposed to be a follow on from Michael’s comment.)
It’s not that Jewish children “can’t commit sin”, but that they aren’t considered morally developed enough to know that they shouldn’t do wrong and so it isn’t counted against them.
As the yetzer hatov isn’t ‘born’ until the child’s bar/bat mitzvah, a child is driven by the yetzer hara to seek pleasure and satisfy wants, limited only by the fear of punishment; some of these pursuits may be spiritual – but a child cannot enter into a sanctified and intimate relationship with God before that age.
Now – this one is supposed to be a response to Ian:
“It seems the real issue is not 3,00 years, but this question: What do the Scriptures say? And how do we know?”
The real problem is the starting point – if you start from a position which sees Jesus/Yeshua in the role Christianity gives him, and as a real and historical person (and the Christian Bible as being a true and unaltered/unadulterated record) then your point stands. If you start from the Jewish position, there is no such problem. Jews would say that “the message” only changed because Paul said it had… and that the church fathers had doctored parts of the gospels, and decided which books to canonise, to fit Paul’s mystical messiah message.
Could I repeat what I’ve said before? It’s not a matter of which is the right interpretation and which is wrong. Christianity and Judaism are two different things – and they begin to be that from Genesis Ch1 v1. Christianity has the New Testament, Judaism doesn’t (it has other writings). If your Scripture includes the New Testament, then the message is totally different to that being taught by Orthodox Rabbis. Jews follow their writings, Christians follow theirs… and muslims follow theirs!
–Carl – I agree, but I was talking about “original sin” and right or wrong, it is a doctrine espoused by many in the Christian church, theologians and non-theologians alike!–
How quick we are in pointing out the sins of others while overlooking completely, “the man in the mirror!” lol! For the remaining few of us who believe both “halves” of the Bible are valid,- “all have sinned” – to this simple man means “all.” There’s a long list of folks who have ever lived, including many famous “names”, but only one “sinless” man to have ever lived. (What was His name-Isaiah 53:6) Oh -whatever, He only fulfilled over three hundred prophecies concerning Himself to the letter.
Adam sinned.-Yes? Did G-d provide a “covering” for the couple? Yes? Was it the skin of an animal? Yes?- Most times I’m aware of, an animal prefers to be dead when the skin is removed and most times when this occurs, blood is shed in the process. We don’t have to travel very far from Genesis to see the “wages” of sin, or the “reality” of a skinless dead animal that was slain for the “covering” of the first couple. The first example of many throughout G-d’s book of a “covering”. G-d provided a covering. Why? (He likes killing animals?) What we need today is an “uncovering” (a revelation) of the covering!
“talking about “original sin” and right or wrong, it is a doctrine espoused by many in the Christian church, theologians and non-theologians alike!–”
Hi Carl,
That’s why we say it is NOT the Good.
It is the Bad and the Ugly.
“doctrine” of original sin – Job’s comment – did my mother conceive me – in sin – from memory (-not sarx!) – don’t see Job “accuse”, er.. help him.”
Hi Carl,
Funny, if I were to tell my old friends that I start every day reading Carl’s work on such things as “sarx,” they would probably reply:
“You mean you start every day reading Karl Marx?”
And I would reply by saying something like: “No, what I study does have to do with the Hebrew worldview, but the topics would be more like Job.”
And they might reply by saying something like: “yeah, that’s because Marx said that the essence of man was work/labor.”
And I would reply by saying something like: “No I’m not talking about a job, I’m talking about Job, you know the guy in the OT who, coincidentally, did do a lot of complaining about work.”
(But then Job does have a pretty hard job, doesn’t he?)
And then they would probably say something like: “yeah, that’s why we never read the Bible, because it’s all about original sin, and how to get into Heaven, and stuff like that.”
And I would reply by saying something like: “”No, not even Job is talking about original sin, unless by original sin you mean the fact that we don’t start out in the Garden.”
(Or maybe the womb is the Garden).
And then I would probably start relating Job to movies like: OK Corral, Hombre, and Cool Hand Luke, in which all of the Heroes are protected inside a “fence.”
How these heroes live by a code, turn their work into a game, and play the game until it’s over.
Hi John – the “in sin” quote is from Psalm 51 v5… but it’s a misquote. In Hebrew it reads: “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.” It was David’s response to Nathan telling him “you are the man”.
Carl, good point.
There’s an interesting verse in Gen 4:7: “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
We will need Skip’s linguistic comment on this to make sure what we read really is the Hebrew text.
The relationship issue that Skip raises, however, is on the right path. Perhaps the question is this one: What are the governing rules of the relationship? Torah. And when we fail to keep Torah we break fellowship with God. This is why I John 3:4 can present sin as (Gr) lawlessness, which in Hebrew might be Torahlessness. Same thing, if we define our words properly.
Ahmein, -brother Ian!
This was a good trail to run on this morning though (or to stay off of) ..-the trail marked “sin.” But “Sarx” is not sin. This, however, was a delightful discourse about sin. Hallelujah for G-d’s promise given unto us, -“sin shall no longer have dominion over you” (Romans 6.14).
We (who are His) are “under new management.” We now work for another Boss. We belong to Him. We are His people and (Hallelujah) the sheep of His pasture. (BTW- how long would sheep last without a Shepherd?)
Of course, sarx used in John is not “sin” since it is the physical body (basar), but it also has a metaphorical sense, as used in some places in Paul’s letters. That is the issue. What does the metaphor mean? For this, Heschel and the rabbis are vey helpful since they have been thinking like rabbis for centuries.
Shalom,
2,1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2,2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. 2,3 And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested from all His work which God in creating had made.
I think to Skip’s point we will not see within the record of creation anywhere when ELOHIM said “let there be sin”!
Chattat is transgression and assuredly it can be spun to be viewed as a state or a noun but ultimately it is specifically related to action … sadly the wrong action … or perhaps even a lack of action.
Skip is simply pointing out that we are not dealing with the boogey-man! Oh yes indeed we are dealing with the spirit of hasatan … that desire to be self sovereign and in control … but at the end of the day The Lord tells Cain that he can rebuke temptation just like James reveals to us: . 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to Elohim. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
But of course we need to be transformed in and through Yeshua to be set free!
For non-believers … their ability to resist? … Now that is another conversation!
good morning Drew!
–For non-believers … their ability to resist? … Now that is another conversation!–
Before I was “saved”, I leapt into sin and loved it, (perfectly “natural” for a pig to wallow in muck and mire-that is what pigs do!), but now that I am His, I lapse into sin and loathe it.
One of the “marks of ownership”- Are we running to sin? or running from?
Why should non-believers (I’m sure glad you didn’t mention Greeks!) resist sin? That is all they know! A vain and empty life-style leading nowhere. -One way to take a bone away from a dog is to offer him a steak. -Most people I know, have never seen the “steak!”
One of the “marks of ownership”- Are we running to sin? or running from?
Skip provided a commentary some time ago regarding how people get comfortable with sin or simply ambivalent towards sin … as you echo herein my brother … “we should recognize rebuking and respond accordingly”… I as well remember that horrible state of existence … out of my mind and not even in the race!
Loathing sin … a sign of being molded! 🙂
We wanted to post something on sin and forgiveness and atonement just before the high holidays, but time ran away… If you remind us after this week, we’ll try to get around to it. But, basically (Amanda, in particular): yes, (from a Hebrew point of view) you can (as Skip says) always repent and return to God; and, yes, it is within man’s ability to do that – without the aid of a ‘messiah’. Jews believe that Scripture shows that we are each responsible for our own sin, that we do not inherit sin, and that we can – then – decide to start again whenever we become aware that we haven’t “hit the mark”.
Now, that isn’t the end of the story (wrong-doing has three stages: sin, unrighteousness and transgression), but Judaism doesn’t make getting right with God any more tricky than that. As a Christian, I always wondered why the Jews (with their deep knowledge of Scripture) didn’t understand who Jesus was. The truth is – they feel they don’t need to! From their perspective: there is no such thing as original sin; they all have a part in the world to come; and the only thing they need to be saved from is their (physical) enemies.
As we’ve said before – Judaism and Christianity are two very different things. Christians see a very real need for Christ to bridge the gap; Jews don’t believe there is, or could ever be, any gap between them and God.
–yes, it is within man’s ability to do that – without the aid of a ‘messiah’.–
Ian, -I’m a bit confused by these words. -Are these your words or the belief of Jewish people in general?
It makes me wonder though, -why did Y’shua volunteer to die? For what purpose did He so willingly die? Was it all a “put-on?” a “show?” So, was He just “showing off?” The cross was a farce? A lie?
Hi Carl – sorry (once more) for having to be brief… you wouldn’t believe the dead-lines here! Let me say again – there is Christianity and there is the religion of the Hebrews. You are a Christian; Christianity has a need for their Messiah, Jesus/Yeshua, to die on the cross. The Jews do not need that. Is there a role within Jewish understanding for Yeshua to “willingly die”? Yes. Is it related to the Christian understanding. No (well, not exactly). Are you a Christian? If so, then a Messiah on a cross meets your needs. If not, then you have a lot more baggage to deal with before the role of Yeshua begins to have any relevance!
This is the problem once you start looking into the “roots” of something. Tara and I are finding that it important to come with no agenda or pre-conceptions or conditions if you want to find out the Truth. And, I think it is clear that we have repeatedly said “This is what the Jews believe.”
Shalom Tara and Ian,
Agree. The ideal of complete objectivity (is this even possible without an obedient (aka sinless) walk coupled with the Spirit opening our minds?). Jewish and Christian presuppositions aside, can you offer up a third purely Hebraic purpose for Israel’s/ Messiah’s “need” to die?
Isaiah 53:10 “But YHVH was pleased, To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of YHVH will prosper in His hand.”
Any chance there might be multiple reasons Messiah might have to die according to Torah? Any reason why a Hebraic view can’t recognize that BOTH Christian and Jewish understandings of Isaiah 53 are BOTH correct?
Shalom Keith – I’m sure you’re going to want more on this – if so, contact us when we have more time after the Festival/Shabbat. OK – the reason that the Hebraic view can’t recognise both Christian and Jewish understandings is that the Hebraic view can’t accept Jesus/Yeshua as being (in any way) God. If that issue was set on one side then there is a lot that could be compared – but, as by setting that aside you don’t have Christianity, then I guess I have to say “no”.
The purely Hebraic reason for Yeshua to die (as a messiah, not THE messiah) is connected with how sinful the nation had become (a bit like the state of things in the time of Moses). But, this does not produce the universal atonement that Christians apportion to the cross.
Once again, sorry this is brief. I will have to hold off from commenting now until after the holidays. Shalom to all!
Ian and Tara,
Thanks for your response. You’d have floored me if you had served up a neat little one-line doctrinal statement as an answer. I’m just not so sure whether we hold a trinitarian view of Messiah really even matters when it comes to teshuvah. Without teshuvah there is no salvation, but I’ve not seen where a trinitarian view of Messiah ben Joseph/ David even matters. It’s like, who can explain just who the Father really is beyond metaphors, let alone the Son of Man?
Enjoy your Sukkot!
Ian and Tara,
One more thing to be clear. I believe there are clear answer(s), however I’m often quick to castigate on the basis of “consider the source”. Judaism, Christianity and my personal understandings are full of errors. We agree the plumb line is Torah, so to avoid invoking any of my personal prejudices, would love an answer which does not categorize sources as “we Jews”, “them Christians”, or “Hebraic”. Gimme Torah mon!
Hi Keith – “without teshuvah there is no salvation…”
Yes, very true – bearing in mind that ‘salvation’ in the Jewish mind is simply ‘rescue’, not eternal life. However, a Jew would say that a trinitarian view (or a Oneness view) would indicate that a person was thinking of a different God to the One they worship. If the Jews are right in their understanding of God – but Christians invoke the name and acts of Jesus/Yeshua during repentance – then the Jew would say that the Christian was addressing an idol… a pale imitation of Adonai, at best. OK – I accept that there are degrees to this… that a Christian may repent before the Father and not even mention Jesus… but repentance is not just the act, it’s the life lived thereafter – and a Jew would say that if the “life lived thereafter” included any belief that Jesus was part of God, that the repentance was insincere (and, possibly, blasphemy).
On your point of using Torah only to provide the answers, I’m afraid that would be difficult – most Orthodox understanding comes from other writings (Talmud, Mishnah, Gematria, etc.)… I will do my best, though! Also, the reason for references such as: “”we Jews”, “them Christians”, or “Hebraic”” is that want to be sure that folk understand the very different points of view held by the parties involved – sometimes, views that are, actually, at odds with the Torah as each party add their other writings to the mix. I often post comments on this site whilst doing other tasks (waiting for a programme to lead, for instance) and so I often write quickly… but I will try to heed your points and refer to the Tanakh/Old Testament wherever possible.
Ian and Tara (and others), I think you would enjoy (and find very interesting) this interview with Rico Cortes about Yom Kippur and the roles of Messiah from a Jewish perspective (Rico is a Sephardic Jew who does believe that Yeshua is Messiah). He doesn’t just refer to the scriptures but brings in writings from the mishnah and other Jewish sources to support and illustrate his point. It might surprise you to find out what some of these older Jewish sources say and teach about Yeshua Ha Moshiach.
Rico is a Torah teacher who specializes in the temple service and has done a lot of study into the Letter to the Hebrews. As he correctly states, unless you read Hebrews from the paradigm of Yom Kippur and the temple service (and understand it from the perspective of the original audience, as Skip so often and so correctly reminds us) you’ll never properly understand the premise and the point of what is probably the most difficult of the New Testament writings (with Romans perhaps a close second).
Here is a direct link to the audio and I also have a two part video teaching from Rico on Hebrews 7,8 and 9 on my website (also available as audio only for those with limited bandwidth).
Hi Rodney – thank you for posting this. We listened to Rico’s radio interview. We must post a few of our observations/comments, just in case anyone else listened.
“…the roles of Messiah from a Jewish perspective” – we feel that it is important to poit out that there is no Jewish perspective that links any of the messiahs to the Temple service. It really doesn’t matter if Rico is a Sephardic Jew or not (in the interview he said he was descended from Sephardic Jews, but people elsewhere on the ‘net doubt whether he is), because, in the interview, he spoke as a Christian (with Roman Catholic overtones). His teaching is Christian; the fact that he uses Hebrew words and refers to Hebrew practices makes no difference. And (by the way) most, if not all of his ‘Hebrew perspective’ is not taken from Hebrew sources… it is taken from Greek sources, such as the Septuagint. The Hebrew wording is different.
Anyway: Rico referred to miracles that were associated with Yom Kippur; specifically, that the red wool tied to the horns of the scapegoat (which used to turn white to indicate that God had forgiven the peoples’ transgressions) stopped (consistently) turning white after Jesus’ death. This is untrue. The wool began to stop turning white after the death of Shimon HaTzaddik a couple of hundred years before Jesus came on the scene. We could go into the reasons for this, but let’s just leave it at that.
Rico says that the Jews are looking for their Messiah – technically, that is untrue. The Jews are hoping for a Messiah, but they know that the time isn’t yet. Christians think that “Jesus is coming back again soon”; the Jews know (from their writings) that there are a few years to go before their hoped-for Messiah comes… unless they do something to merit his early arrival. The Hebrew concept of ‘messiah’ is very different to the Christian one – from their point of view they didn’t miss Jesus… they examined him and found that he didn’t fit the description.
Rico totally misunderstands the Hebrew concept of the Blood of the Covenant – it would take too long to justify this statement here, so you will just have to believe me.
Then, he makes his point about the Hebrew prayers containing the ‘name’ Yeshua and the description ‘Prince of the Presence’. Now, it isn’t the name ‘Yeshua’, it is the word – and it means ‘salvation’. In Hebrew, the Prince of the Presence, is also called ‘the Prince of the Face’. This is actually a title that can be applied to any angel or messenger who is appointed to minister to God behind the veil of the heavenly tabernacle. Actually, in some Hebrew teaching, the angel serves as the veil between God and the other heavenly beings. Anyway, it isn’t applied to any one creature; Michael had the title for a while… some sages teach that Enoch was given that title once God took him.
Rico says that modern Judaism doesn’t teach on the Temple service – incorrect, it does… that’s how we learned about it! His interpretation (in the radio interview) of Melchizadek and the bringing of bread and wine are from Roman Catholicism, not Hebrew – there is no parallel in Judaism to his teaching as presented.
Rico’s teaching about Jesus’/Yeshua’s death is ‘western’ and ‘Christian’ and in no way from a Hebrew thought pattern. The Jewish understanding is that if we have sinned or been unrighteous, we can sort it out – one to one with God, because: “God is near to all who call to Him”.
And, quickly (because it’s late!) the Jews do not see the Passover lamb as a sin offering; it’s a celebration of God’s victory over the pagan gods. To the Jews, the Passover lamb represents a pagan god. If Rico is a Jew, speaking about Hebrew Temple practice, he would know that.
I’m sorry this is brief – but, it would be unfair to give a longer critique without a transcript. However – let me say again – Judaism and Christianity are different, and if Rico would drop the ‘Jewish’ label, I could accept this Christian teaching for what it is.
Judaism and Christianity are two belief systems whose basis is the Old Testament. They are thus an inter-family debate as to who reads the Old Testament accurately. Something akin to the debates that going within different denominations.
As Skip said the other day, your belief system depends on your presuppositions.
Ian – you missed the Muslims out of your family list!
I didn’t miss it. I just didn’t include it. 🙂 But it helps point to the issue: Who reads the Tanakh correctly? And how do we know?
I would be interested to read the meaning of the sacrificial laws under Judaism.
If you mean the deeper meanings, then so would most Jews! Some of the Hebrew mystical books point to some aspects of the deeper meanings, but much has been lost now. What we must understand is that the sacrificial system did not have the same importance to Jews that Christians think it should have – it was a blow for the Jews to lose the Temple, but the Temple was much more than the sacrifices. As I’ve said before, we have this concept that Joe Jew was in there every day making a sacrifice… but that is far from the truth. If you want to do an introductory study on the meanings of the sacrifices, you will need to look at each of the animals that were used and refer to Egyptology to see which gods they represented; that will show you why Adonai identified those animals as the ones His people should sacrifice.
Skip: Where would I find the “Torah”?
Shalom
You could Google the word to start with. Then you will discover that Torah is technically the first 5 books of the Bible but by the first century, it was a shorthand way of speaking about the whole Hebrew Scriptures. If you want to see the Torah commandments, Google “613 commandments” and you will get the list at Judaism 101.
Romans 8.9 -But you, you do not identify with your old nature but with the Spirit – provided the Spirit of God is living inside you, for anyone who doesn’t have the Spirit of the Messiah doesn’t belong to him.
This would be funny if it weren’t so sad, but this is from the “Complete Online Jewish Bible.” (Looks like the Jews might be fallible as well!) –“but-what saith the scripture?”– “Sarx” . (you may call me- “meat-head”, if you wish!”) -lol!
Sadly, if this document contains “Romans” then it is from the “Complete Online Jewish Bible” for Christians!
Ian and Tara,
I know you guys are busy with Sukkot, but when it’s over, and after Sabbath, would you mind elaborating on your earlier point? I don’t know if there’s a way to maybe do a guest post on the site, or if you could just email it to those of us who are interested, but I would really like to hear what you have to share. My email is youngbloodfamily and gmail if you want to just email it.
Thanks! I hope Sukkot is awesome (do you wish someone a happy Sukkot? Seems a little odd, but…)! 🙂
“for anyone who doesn’t have the Spirit of the Messiah doesn’t belong to him.”
Hi Amanda,
I’m a little confused by this thread.
Isn’t their just one God/Spirit; of the Messiah and for the Jew, the Christian, and the Muslim?
A rose is a rose is a rose, as it goes. (I think Romeo or Juliette said that 🙂
Hi Amanda – thanks for the email address, that will be useful. We wouldn’t want to ‘guest post’ (even if Skip kindly offered) – although many of our comments have been longer than posts! The reason for that is that we are very aware that this is an open forum and we don’t know who is reading… nor what their situation is. We always try to make sure that we are reporting facts, so that folk can check things out for themselves.
We are abundantly aware that (no matter how it is spun by those who like to think there is) that there is very little common ground between Christianity and Judaism/Hebrew religious practice… and of how easy it is to offend, distract or hinder a person in their pursuit of God. Let us know which particular “earlier point” you wanted us to elaborate and we’ll see what we can share with you after the holidays. And, yes, you can certainly say “Happy Sukkot” (and look up Simchat Torah)! Blessings.
“there is very little common ground between Christianity and Judaism/Hebrew religious practice”
“and of how easy it is to offend, distract or hinder a person in their pursuit of God.”
Hi Ian and Tara,
As I recall, sin and looking for trouble has something in common.
In my view, it is better to find “common ground” and to “bridge the gap” whenever we can.
After all we have one God in common.
And I hope no one is worried about offending me 🙂
Hi Michael – although we would be concerned about offending you, or any of the people who post frequently, it isn’t you we were thinking about. We know that there are people who read this site – maybe not every day – who are very ‘young’ in the faith… who do not get good teaching in their home church… who might read a comment that questions the basics of their faith…
I work in a job where I receive regular e-mails from immature Christians telling me about things that have offended them… and the results of that offence. It would amaze you to hear of the kind of things that they pick up on. It would be nice to think that such people would post on the forum here when they are upset or confused or worried – but (as has been said before) this is quite an intimidating place to post for the first (and even second) time!
So, let me take this opportunity – if I have offended anyone out there, please do post and let me (us) know.
Hi Ian,
Thanks for the feedback.
I sometimes worry a bit about offending others on this blog.
But it is difficult for me to imagine how someone could offend me with a comment 🙂
For me, this community is like being in a school, where Skip is the professor and we are the students.
If we just read his daily lesson, we can learn a lot and that is what I did for a long time.
Because I thought I didn’t have anything in common with others who didn’t comment.
The benefit I get from writing about my views is that I get to see myself “objectified.”
To see myself as others might see me.
Which I think is an important part of this learning process.
I’m also a big believer in open communication (OC), teamwork, integrity, and service.
We should be here to help each other IMO, but we cannot help each other without OC.
I put my faith in these values, because I know they yield results that are good.
In the end, I guess I’m not sure why anyone would be offended by anything here.
Or lose their faith as a result of this learning process.