Biblical Theology & Luke 4:43

Israel and the Church - a 3 part harmony?

2012-01-11T11:51:00.000+10:00

Below is a summary of my understanding of the relationship between Israel and the church.

It has been developed over a considerable period of time as I have sought to understand the Bible, the role of Israel and the place of Gentiles in God's plans.

While I have always rejected Replacement Theology, it has been a considerable struggle to determine how to read and interpret the many NT scriptures that are principally used to support this false and heinous doctrine.

The Jewish Annotated NT introduced me recently to a number of Jewish theologians such as Mark Nanos (check out at www.marknanos.com), Amy Jill-Levine and Pamela Eisenbaum (for example, 'ISPAUL THE FATHER OF MISOGYNY AND ANTISEMITISM?' - http://www.crosscurrents.org/eisenbaum.htm), who have an incredible amount of insight to offer on this challenging issue.

I am also, as always, most indebted to the brilliant scholarship of Frank Selch (his book 'Replacement Theology' should be required reading for this issue). Frank and other Gentile followers of Yeshua (including many Facebook 'friends') have helped me to recognize that Paul was a Torah observant Jew.

The Family of God:

Paul, in recognizing that Yeshua was the Messiah, has recognized that the great Day of the Lord is about to dawn when ‘all Israel will be restored’ (Ezek 38,39).

We can see his appreciation that the Messianic Age has dawned, and that the Coming Age is imminent, by his comments in Romans 8:18-25:

¹⁸ For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
²¹ that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
²³ And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Paul, who is already a member of Abraham’s family also understands that from Isaiah 49 and other prophecies that people from many nations (Gentiles) need to come into Abraham’s family if the Coming Age is to fully dawn, as God had told Abraham that he would be a father of many nations (Gen 17:4). Despite the fact that Abraham had had other children along with Isaac and was thus already the father of many nations, in the Second Temple Period; in Paul’s day, Abraham was considered that patriarch of the ‘Jews’ only (more correctly the 12 tribes, the children of Jacob).

So Paul saw the crucifixion and resurrection as somehow opening up the door so that Gentiles could enter into Abrahams family through Yeshua the Messiah. At the same time, he saw that they needed to remain people from many nations and not become Jewish for the prophecies to be fulfilled.

So how could these Gentiles come into the family of God; into the family of Abraham and yet not become Jewish. The brilliant answer is ‘grafting’. A graft of an orange onto a lemon tree means that orange can be supported and grow to maturity through the nutrients from the root of the tree but it remains an orange!

Paul therefore saw that Israel remains Israel and he believed that ‘all Israel’ would be saved (Romans 11:26 & Isaiah 59), and that many gentiles would also enter the Kingdom.

Clearly then the church is not Israel and cannot be Israel. The ‘church’ (believers in Yeshua) is part of the family of God but not the whole family. Also God is not just the God of the Jews but the Gentiles as well.

To be explicit, the family of God, are the children of Abraham through the 'promise' (through the Spirit), but this means both the natural sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as well as the Gentiles who enter via the ‘libation’ (Ps 2:6) of Yeshua.

This family of saints is then made up of three groups;

1) obedient/faithful Jews;

2) obedient/faithful Jewish followers of Yeshua; and

3) obedient/faithful Gentile followers of Yeshua.

Groups 1 and 2 together are Israel; Groups 2 and 3 together are the 'Church'.

This is why in all of Paul’s writings he speaks in ‘family’ terms and describes the Gentiles he is witnessing to as brothers and sisters, as now members of the family of Abraham.

This is why he informs that Gentiles that they are not to become proselytized Jews, though clearly that are called to be obedient to the Torah of God as it relates to Gentiles (essentially, the 10 Words plus the Noahide Laws of Acts 15).

Paul may have been one of the first apostles to fully appreciate how Gentiles could, through Messiah, become full members of the family of God, just not guests of Israel, but full and equal members, though with some different expectations.

For example the natural sons of Jacob were to continue to undergo and observe circumcision, etc., but the new members of the family from the many nations did not need to, and in fact, for obvious reasons, should not get circumcised and become Jewish. In this way, even the food laws remain for Israel, that is for all Jews, but they are not always obligatory for gentile followers of Messiah Yeshua.

This was the dawning of a new relationship between Jew and Gentile. While this new relationship had been foretold in the Tanakh (OT), it was to most of Israel a mystery. It required considerable impetus from the Almighty to even be considered, such as the Cornelius House and the Damascus Road events.

When fully considered and thought through, this understanding removes most of the seeming contradictions apparently present in the NT, especially in the epistles of Paul.

If we also consider the Apostle Peter, the Apostle to the Jews and his(?) comments in 1 Peter 2 it makes sense that he is speaking primarily to Jewish followers of Yeshua. Could the Gentiles followers in these communities he addresses, also have been included and therefore considered priests? Yes, in the sense that all who put their trust in the Almighty are then ‘priests’ or mediators between man and God as they are to be ‘lights’ for God in the communities in which they live.

Certainly, as Rev 5:10 makes clear, in the Coming Age (the Millennial Kingdom) all of Abraham’s family will be part of the Kingdom of God and priests to the mortal world they are to witness to.

I am sure that this understanding raises many different and varied questions for many readers. I believe I have heard most of these questions, and I believe I can satisfactorily answer them within this paradigm.

Your questions are welcome.

“WE are the circumcision ..” (Phil 3:3)

2012-01-08T10:56:00.000+10:00

Many Christian scholars see this text as referring to thechurch.

Typical of this view is this statement from a very well known Christianscholar and Professor:

“Since WE means the church, then WE are the true Jews, Jews andcircumcision being the same.”

My argument is that WE does NOT mean the church but that itmeans Israel, as 'circumcision ' is a metonym for being an Israelite or Jewish.

The whole problem with this faulty understanding both here and throughout all of Paul's epistles stems from a triumphalistic ‘church’ based worldview.

This worldview leads to a great many problems in Christian practice as well as much more significantly, anti-Semitism and all the great evil that has arisen from this baseless hostility.

I have addressed this faulty understanding of the Apostle Paul a little in a number of places and most specifically in my article 'The Apostle Paul: Disciple or Fraud" (at www.circumcisedheart.info )

While I have been aware of these problems with the traditional approaches to Paul's epistles for some years, I have only very recently been introduced to a Jewish theologian, Prof. Mark Nanos, who addresses these problems brilliantly and suggests a much more satisfactory perspective and approach.

He argues that the solution lies in seeing Paul’s work asthe writings of a Torah observant Jew from an inter/intra Jewish position.

This is brilliantly summed up in this quote from one of his articles below:

“Scholars should consider approaching thehistorical and rhetorical situations for interpreting

Paul’s texts on thoroughlyinter/intra-Jewish instead of inter/intra-Christian models, and they

should be careful not to mixthem, which can undermine the effort. There is good historical

reason to explore these approaches,since Paul and the other early believers in Jesus were Jewish and understoodwhat they were doing to be Jewish.

Ithink it likely that they thought of themselves in terms of a coalition, aJewish subgroup or subgroups engaged in a temporary task on behalf of Israel,and not founding a new religion or sect that was in some way less Jewish.

These approaches (and they) havea better chance of yielding the desired ideological benefit, to the degree thatthey consistently recognize the issuesat dispute in Paul’s letters did not revolve around the question of whether orto what extent Jewish norms such as Torah applied, but to how theyapplied to the new reality he claimed his groups represented; namely, thedawning of the age to come within the present age, so that Israelites andmembers of the nations worshipped the Creator God of all humankind as one,however, remaining both Israelites and representatives of the nations whendoing so.

Whenthe shared term is Jewishness, as it is in intra-Jewish terms, the contrastshifts from discussing whether there is something problematic with Jewishness,to whether or not a person or group believes in Jesus Christ, and theassociated claims for what difference that makes. In other words, unlike whenthe shared term is Christ, the difference between two groups does not fallalong a line differentiating levels of respect for Jewish identity and Torah,since Jewishness is likely upheld to be essential by Jewish groups.

Imagining the dispute between andwithin Jewish group boundaries keeps the focus on the meaning of faith in Jesusfor themselves, and others, as Jewish groups.

Another benefit of this conceptualizationis that difference is respected. The intra-Jewish

construction allows thehistorical participants as well as the interpreter to respect that having a differentopinion about the meaning of Jesus Christ or of appeals to him to legitimatesocial change within Jewish groups neednot represent value judgments that one decision or the other is better, justdifferent.

As I understand Paul, heupheld the Jewish notion that, although social (and biological) differencesremain in the present age, that is, there remains Jews and non-Jews in Christ,the discrimination usually associated with such differences should not prevail,just as is expected to be the case in the age to come, when even the wolf andthe lamb will dwell together.

This seems to me to be a sensibleand noble ideal for how to approach each other today in Jewish/Christianrelations’ terms, whether sharing his belief that this age has dawned in Jesus Christ, or not." - from http://www.marknanos.com/SBL-03-Inter-Christian-Prob.pdf

I highly recommend these articles.

Re-evaluating Philippians 3

2012-01-04T13:09:00.000+10:00

The most common interpretation of Philippians 3 isthat it is a polemic against either ‘the circumcision’ (Jewish people) or, evenmore commonly, against ‘Judaizers’ (a term used to define those arguing thatgentile ‘Christ-followers’ need to take on all the markers of Jewishness, thatis, that they need to be circumcised, etc).

Given the very common Hellenistic mindset, that mostuncritically approach this text with, it is not at all surprisingly how it isthen understood in this way. In fact, I suspect it would be very difficult forany Gentile believer attending a typical (Hellenistic) church in today’s worldto see this text in any other way.

The traditional view is also both anti-Semitic andsupportive of Replacement Theology. In case this is not clear consider twoquotes by Gerald F. Hawthorne, in the Word Biblical Commentary (1983) onPhilippians 3:2. His comments are typical of Christian commentaries on this passage.He states:

“The Jews were in thehabit of referring contemptuously to Gentiles as dogs—unclean animals with whomthey would not associate if such association could be avoided…. Paul now hurlsthis term of contempt back "on the heads of its authors."

And

“to Paul the Jews were thereal pariahs that defile the holy community, the Christian church, with their erroneous teaching.”

To try to give pause for some serious reflection andreconsideration then, let us assume for a moment that the Apostle Paul isattacking ‘Judaizers’ here (remembering that these were people who had acceptedJesus/Yeshua as the Christ/Messiah but were arguing for circumcision, etc). Inverses 18-19 Paul goes on to say of these ‘Judaizers’:
18 “For many, of whomI have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of thecross of Christ. 19 Their end isdestruction … “

Is Paul really saying that these ‘Christ-followers’are ‘enemies of the cross of Christ’ and that ‘their end is destruction’!Surely not! Surely, there must be something wrong here with this traditionalinterpretation.

Hopefully, this shocking statement (within thiscontextual understanding) will give you the impetuous to look a little deeperhere.

Consider the context again. Paul's letter was sent toa Romanized city, populated by many Romans and peoples from many other lands;with very strong social stratification. They were very much an agricultural andthus highly interdependent city where many cults were practiced and many gods,including Egyptian gods, were worshiped.

Into this pagan mix, consider that the Apostle Paulwas a Torah observant Jew (as I argue in a number of other articles in somedepth), had arrived to establish and support groups practicing Judaism with abelief that Yeshua was the Messiah (though the Gentiles within these groupswere encouraged by Paul and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 to remain Gentilesand not become proselytized Jews). Here though Paul is communicating with thesegroups by letter.

In this context then, Paul is declaring opposition toand revulsion toward the idolatrous cults that abounded here. He is also tryingto encourage the Gentile believers to no longer have their worldview andbehaviour shaped by the Roman social world in which they have grown up; butthat, this now marginalized group, acquire the worldview and behaviour of thosewho follow the ‘divine instructions’ (Torah) of the One God.

With this perspective let us look at a few of theterms used by Paul. For example, consider v2 “Look out for the dogs,look out for the evildoers, look outfor those who mutilate the flesh.”

For a start there is no literary evidence from theSecond Temple Period or afterwards that in expressing ethnic prejudice, Jewscalled non-Jews ‘dogs’. Thus the common argument that Paul is reversing thisexpression cannot be valid. Rather, there was in Phillipi a cult orphilosophical group, called in English the ‘Cynics’, which is based on theGreek word for dogs. As a means to demonstrate what they saw as the errors ofthe society of their day they tried to outdo all others in "doggish"type behavior.

Consider also the story of Elijah and the prophets ofBaal. These prophets were clearly ‘evil doers’ and also mutilators of the flesh(see 1 Kings 18). Isn’t it more likelythen that Paul was comparing the local pagans and cults as similar to theprophets of Baal? In fact, Paul does compare himself with Elijah and invokethese very images of ‘evil workers’ and ‘mutilators’ in Romans 11:1-5. Rememberalso that the Torah makes it clear that mutilation of the flesh is not to bepracticed by the Jews. See for example Lev 19:28 “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the deador tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD. “ and therefore that there is no waythat Judaism considered circumcision as a form of ‘mutilation’ of the flesh.

Let us look at v18-19 again: “For many, of whom Ihave often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of thecross of Christ. Their end isdestruction, their god is their belly,and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.” and in particular the terms ‘their god is their belly’ and ‘they glory in their shame’, which areused to identify the people, behaviour and cults that Paul is condemning.

Consider the events described by Luke in Acts16:12-40:

“12 and fromthere to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and aRoman colony. …

16 As we weregoing to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit ofdivination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling….

19 But when herowners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas anddragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.

20 And whenthey had brought them to the magistrates, they said, These men are Jews, andthey are disturbing our city.

21 Theyadvocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice.

The slave girl is said to have a spirit of python (see‘pneuma pyhona’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_spirit) from the cult of Apollo (thespecial god for Augustus, who won the battle for him at Philippi). Thisdivination was also called ‘belly talking’, and could thus be described as a ‘god in their belly’. The Cynics doggishbehaviour involved behaving in the most animal and shameful manner to exposewhat they saw as the hypocrisy of their society. Thus this group of localpagans could be described as ‘glorifyingin their shame’.

Now we are ready to look again at verse 3-17. In Phil3:3 it now appears that Paul is contrasting these local pagan practices andbeliefs with the Way (Ps 119) of the Jews (note also in the story from Acts 16above that he was accused of pushing Jewish customs), which involved ‘serving God by spirit’ instead ofputting their faithfulness in the flesh as these pagan cults do.

It is also important to remember that when Paul speaksfavourably of the Abrahamic covenant, that it was a covenant that enshrinedmale circumcision as an eternal marker of Jewishness.

Now, I think a re-reading of the whole chapter shouldindicate that in speaking of his historical high standing within the Judaism ofhis day, Paul is including his addressees, the Gentile ‘Christ-followers’ ofPhilippi, into the Jewish community, but then even further elevating his andtheir status because they have recognized and embraced the Messiah of Israeland are endeavouring to live with the same faithfulness as Yeshua to the OneTrue God.

Let us turn specifically to verse 3-7:

“3 For we arethe circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit[1], rejoicein Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,

4 though I alsomight have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may haveconfidence in the flesh, I more so:

5 circumcisedthe eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of theHebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;

6 concerningzeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law,blameless.
7 But whatthings were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.”

So now hopefully it should be clear than when Paulstates ‘we are the circumcision’ (note he does not say ‘we are the spiritualcircumcision’ or ‘the true circumcision’ or the circumcision of the heart’), heis NOT stating that the Church of God is now the circumcision and has replaced thepeople of Israel as ‘the circumcision’.

I believe when he states ‘we are the circumcision’ heis speaking to his Gentile audience and identifying himself with his fellow Jewishfollowers of Yeshua, who could all boast in their heritage but no longer do sobecause they have seen the Messiah, the King of Israel and instead boast inhim.

He is thus encouraging his Gentile audience that theynow may also have great confidence that through the Messiah, the Christ, theyhave now been grafted into the ‘circumcision’, the chosen people of God.

With this understanding of this chapter, it is nolonger seen as seriously anti-Semitic.

Also, it can no longer be used as an argument forReplacement Theology, which is exactly what is normally promoted through thetraditional understanding and perspective.

This is only a very short introduction and overview toa more consistent and less contradictory view of this whole chapter.

For a more in-depth presentation I recommend "Judaizers"? "Pagan"Cults? Cynics?: Reconceptualizing the Concerns of Paul's Audience from thePolemics in Philippians 3:2, 18-19” by Prof Mark Nanos – see http://www.marknanos.com/Cynics-In-Phil3-May11.pdf as wellas “Paul's Reversal of Jews Calling Gentiles'Dogs' (Philippians 3:2): 1600 Years of an Ideological Tale Wagging anExegetical Dog” – see http://www.marknanos.com/Phil3Dogs-Reverse-1-17-08.pdffrom which I am indebted to for much of the argumenthere.

[1] or, as some codices have it, 'who serve God the Spirit,' or 'theSpirit of God’.

Some thoughts on 1 Thess 2:14-16:

2012-01-01T16:54:00.002+10:00

Irecently re-read this passage and it almost literally jumped out at me that:

1) no way did the Apostle Paul write this, and

2) it was written after 70 CE (- the original letterwas written circa 51 CE).

Whyis this important and what does this mean?

Firstlythe passage in question (many include v 13 as well):

13 And wealso thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God,which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what itreally is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

14 For you, brothers, became imitators ofthe churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered thesame things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,

15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose allmankind

16 by hindering us from speaking to theGentiles that they might be saved—so asalways to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!

Howwrong (‘the Jews’ did not kill Jesus,and the latest evidence indicates that synagogue ‘expulsions’ (‘drove us out’) did not occur until wellafter 70 CE), how exaggerated and anti-Semitic. Also the writer appears toglorify in a nations(?) suffering (the Fall of Jerusalem)!

Nowonder I know plenty of committed God-fearers; as well as Torah observant Jews;and even followers of Yeshua, who reject the Apostle Paul as a fraud and atraitor to the faith of Israel, the proto-Judaism of his time!

Solet’s look a little more deeply at this passage.

Aftermuch scholarly research and debate, especially ‘form-critical’ work 1 Thess1:10 has been generally accepted as the end of the ‘thanksgiving’ section and 1 Thess 2:17 as the beginning of the ‘apostolic parousia’. Also then, 1 Thess2:1-12 has emerged as the initial section of the ‘body’ of this letter, leading quite naturally to 2:17 and leaving 1Thess 2:13-16 as an intrusion, that is, as not ’fitting in’; as not an originalportion of the letter.

Scholarshave argued that this is a more plausible explanation than seeing 1 Thess 2:13 asthe beginning of a second letter that has been joined to the first letter by alater editor. Some scholars(Pearson for example – see Birger Pearson: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: ADeutero-Pauline Interploation HTR 64 -1971) have shown that the content of 1Thess 2:15-16 appears contemporary with the perspective of several post-70 CEMatthean passages. That is, Pearson has given a good argument that this addedportion was written some 20 years (post 70 AD) after the original epistle(circa 51 AD).

Ithas been mainly through modern linguistic techniques that scholars have beenable to more conclusively show that 1 Thess 2:13-16 was not part of theoriginal letter and was added by a different author. As I am no linguist, Iwill not attempt to even explain how this is done. For those who wish tofollow-up on this though, I recommend ‘1Thess 2:13-16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation’ by DarylSchmidt, Journal of BiblicalLiterature (June 1 1983).

A dissentingview argues that, given that there are no ancient manuscripts which excludethese verses; that they can be seen in some ways to fit logically and stylisticallyinto the epistle’s context; and that the strong language here is consistentwith other statements by Paul against his opponents, the Pauline authorship ofthis text should be presumed. Itis also possible that ‘the Jews’ being referred to here was not the wholenation of Israel, but just the Judeans. These possibilities, even if correct,would in no way change the historical impact of these anti-Semitic words.

Insummary then, some consensus has been established that the content of 2:13-16does not fit well into 1 Thessalonians, nor into Pauline thought in general,and that formally this section intrudes into the overall structure of the wholeletter.

Also,that the linguistic evidence suggests that it did not come from the same authoras the rest of the letter, but is rather built around an amalgamation ofPauline expressions.

Scholarstherefore politely call it an interpolation (added text into a passage).

Ithink it would be fairer and probably more accurate to call it a corruption; asinister, evil, inexcusable perversion.

Why?

Becauseit is passages like this in the NT that have directly led to falseunderstandings and interpretations of scripture; which in turn have been usedto justify a great many pogroms and evil perpetuated against the Jewish peopleover the last 1900 years.

Itis because of corruptions of the NT like 1 Thess 2:14-16 that minimally resultin ‘Replacement Theology’ and anti-Semitic attitudes and behaviour.

Believingthat the vitriolic and virulent words here are Scripture and hence reflect themind of God leads some otherwise decent and well-meaning Christians to take astance that is very un-godly and unhelpful to say the least.

Isee Christian scholars, even scholars of considerable standing, who believethat they are not anti-Semitic and don’t subscribe to Replacement Theology (forexample, that the ‘Israel of God’ is the church) and yet appear to read thistext without flinching!

Itis way past the hour! It is time that Christians recognized that many of theirdoctrines are not only wrong but lead to great evil because they have beendeveloped through a Hellenistic mindset. It is time for Christians to rejectHellenistic Christianity and begin to learn to view the Bible with Hebraic eyesand as a result to more accurately and honestly see the One True God and Hiseternal purposes and plans.

Howcan this be accomplished?

Hereare just a few ideas:

Seek out Jewish theologians who have studied the NT such as ProfAmy-Jill Levine and Prof Mark Nanos;
Enrol in courses with organisations like The Center forJewish-Christian Understanding & Cooperation (www.cjcuc.com);
Join local organizations which pray for Israel and are similar to TheOlive Tree Connection (for those who live in Brisbane, Australia - www.theolivetreeconnection.com);
Seek out teaching on the Hebraic mindset;
And try to befriend any Jewish neighbours or acquaintances you may haveand try to humbly learn from them.

Israel of God (Gal 6:16):

2012-01-01T16:51:00.004+10:00

“And asfor all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon theIsrael of God. “ (ESV Gal 6:16)

This term is unique in the Bible. Thuswarning bells should immediately go off when someone tries to base doctrine onit.

More significantly, Dr Peter Richardson did a very comprehensive historicalstudy of this term and the associated ‘replacement’ doctrines (see ‘Israel inthe Apostolic Church’) and states that theadoption by Christianity of Jewish prerogatives and attributes, and inparticular with its assumption of the name 'Israel' took place over a longperiod.

In fact, Richardson argues thatthe equating of the Church as the 'true Israel' does not occur, until themid-second century in the works of Justin Martyr.

Clearly then, in Paul’s timeno-one saw this term as meaning the Christianity was the ‘Israel of God’.

Further though, look at thecontext. If Paul was referring to theseGentile converts as Israel, it would undermine his effort to persuade them toremain non- Israelites by resisting the offer of proselyte conversion toresolve their identity problems.

Paul emphasizes that God has included them by way ofthe Messiah into Abraham's family, but he does not declare them to be membersof the family of Israel. Rather, it is likely that Paul is reflecting asentiment not unlike that expressed in Romans 11 toward his fellow ‘natural’ Israelites,looking for a day when there will be peace among them, rather than division.

While the whole Galatians epistle focuses on thecircumcision/proselyte issue, at this point in Gal 6, Paul is not seeking to represent thefate of some of Israel, but to warn the wild olive (the gentiles) of the fateit/they will meet, if it/they are unfaithful. An allegory intended to condemnGentile arrogance can’t suddenly become a source for descriptions of Jewishexclusion and replacement.

Rather, in the context that theApostle Paul sees the coming restoration of all through the Messiah’sappearance and the prophetic inclusion of Gentiles in the Kingdom, it may wellbe that Paul is in some ways reflecting on Ps 126 which foresees a time whenall Israel will be properly and truly called the ‘Israel of God’.

The ‘old wine is better’ – revisiting the ‘Wineskins’ parable:

2011-12-18T20:55:00.004+10:00

Thisclassic parable of Yeshua that speaks of the problems of pouring new wine intoold wineskins has been so much a part of the Church and church doctrine that Ihad never seriously looked at it, though, without even any serious reflection,it had always somehow disturbed me.

Recentlyin a debate over aspects of the foundations of the NT, one of the scholars Ihad been arguing with said: “Jesus warned against pouring new wine into old wine-skins. Attempts to domesticate the Christ of scripture by pouring the new wine of theSpirit into the old wine-skins of Second Temple Judaism are doomed tofail. If they do not burst the old skins the sweet wine of the Spiritwill be turned into the vinegar of thedeath-dealing letter of the Law (2 Corinthians 3:6).” – David Maas (inan email to Anthony Buzzard on Sat, Oct 15, 2011 and cc’d to me).

WhenI read this statement above, it struck me very forcefully, how emphaticallythis ‘wineskins’ statement of Yeshua was been used to support a very strongdoctrine of ‘Replacement’. That is, that the church has replaced Israel inGod’s affections and plans.

Maasis very clear here in equating the Jewish religion of Yeshua’s day (what heterms ‘Second Temple Judaism’) that adhered to the Hebrew Scriptures (TheTanakh or Old Testament), with the ‘old wineskin’, and Christianity as the‘sweet (new) wine of the Spirit’.

Hereis also very clearly equates this so-called ‘Old Covenant’ (Second TempleJudaism) with the ‘letter of the Law’ and the so called ‘New Covenant’ ofChristianity with the ‘Spirit of the Law’.

This‘Replacement Theology’ whether intention or not (surely most ‘Christians’ whosupport it are not intentionally anti-Israel and against the Jewishness ofYeshua), has resulted in a great deal of anti-semitism which has ultimately ledto great persecutions and pogroms against the Jewish people.

Infact, it could be argued that the miss-understanding of this parable has beeninstrumental in much evil (‘bad fruit’) against the Jewish people and helpsexplain why when Jewish lovers of the Almighty look at the ‘fruit of the tree’of Christianity, they do not see ‘good fruit’ but bad, and consequently rejectthe messenger because of the falsehood of the message. In this vein you maywish to revisit Matthew 7:16-20, Luke 13:6-9 and then John 15:2-16.

In seekingcommentary where this parable was first used to argue that the church hadreplaced Israel and Judaism, I found that it appears to have been first proposedby the seriously anti-semitic Marcion (85 – 160 CE) in his ultimately successfulefforts to separate Christianity from Judaism (I would recommend a readingof Frank Selch’s book ‘Replacement Theology’ for more detail on thehistory of this rejection of the Hebraic roots of Christianity).

So,thanks to David Maas comment, which I found very disturbing, I was interestedin returning to and reconsidering this parable.

Thanksto the incredible work of the late David Flusser (Hebrew University) and theJerusalem School of Synoptic Research, I now understood that the Gospel of Lukewas most likely written before the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, and these wellbefore John’s gospel.

Thereforeit seemed sensible to start in Luke (Luke 5:36-39):

“He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piecefrom a new garment and sews it on an old garment; otherwise the new will betorn, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts newwine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and willbe spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But the new wine must be out intofresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desire new wine, but says ‘The old is good’.” (Some manuscripts, such as the KJV have ‘The old is better’) – TheJewish Annotated New Testament

I had read and listened to this scripturea great many times and even heard preachers speak on it but I had amazinglymissed the last sentence where Yeshua said the old wine is better! You may needto do a double take yourself here. Yeshua states that it is the old wine, notthe new wine in new wineskins that is better!

It is also perhaps worth noting somedifferent ways verse 39 is translated into English:

“ … And no one who has ever tasted fine aged wineprefers unaged wine." – The Message

“Of course, nobody who has been drinking old wine willwant the new at once. He is sure to say, ‘The old is a good sound wine.’” – JB Philips

“And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new;for he says, ‘The old is good enough.’” - NASB

I am not sure though that thesetranslations bring anything new or more helpful to the simple comment that the‘old wine is better’.

When we turn to the two references to thissame parable in Mark (2:22) and in Matthew (9:17) we find this last sentencemissing. Without this concluding sentence it is much easier to interpret thisparable as Marcion and Maas have. Perhaps this part of the parable was excludedfrom the Gospels of Matthew and Mark deliberately by copyists or translators,for this very reason.

It should not take much reflection then tosee that this parable can in no way be suggesting that the ‘sweet (new) wine’of Christianity is somehow superior to the old wine of Judaism. If these werethe two concepts and approaches being compared, it would mean that Yeshua wassaying that Judaism was better!

So now, we need I think to ask, is thiswhat the parable is suggesting or is it something a little more subtle?

The late Dr Robert L Lindsey (a BaptistPastor and student of Flusser) argues most convincingly in his book ‘Jesus,Rabbi and Lord’ (see Chapter 19) that all throughout the Gospel of Luke thestructure of each narrative is three fold: (1) An incident in Yeshua’s life isrelated; (2) this is followed by a teaching discourse by Yeshua; and (3) whichthen concludes with 2 parables.

Consider how this ‘wineskins’ parable fitswith this approach.

We see in Luke 5:27, that the taxcollector (Matthew Levi the possible author of the Gospel of Matthew or atleast the original Hebrew ‘History of Yeshua’) has prepared a great feast forYeshua. A number of the Pharisees and scribes question Yeshua about spendingtime with these ‘sinners’ (the tax collectors had chosen their unrighteousoccupation which meant they had chosen to separate themselves from communitywelfare and fellowship with their ‘healthy’ or righteous brethren).

Yeshua then makes the classic statement orteaching that the healthy do not need a doctor. He was saying here, as he hadelsewhere, they he had come to call the unrighteous, the ‘lost sheep of Israel’back to the covenantal relationship that the family of Israel had with theirFather, the Almighty.

It is thus, in this context that he givesthe two parables; the parable about sewing a piece of new cloth onto an old garmentand the wineskins parable. In this context, I would argue that the ‘old wine isbetter’ refers to those of Israel who have been, and remain in, communion withthe God of Israel. That is the healthy sheep of Israel that are not lost (themainstream Jewish ‘man in the street’ represented in the religious context bythe Pharisees - Yeshua himself being essentially a Pharisee – see ‘Jesus’ byFlusser).

They are ‘better’ or ‘good enough’ becausethey have a developed intimacy with the Almighty, which the Jewish taxcollectors and other sinners, through no longer walking right with God(halakha), have turned their backs on.

In calling these ‘sinners’ back to theFather, Yeshua sees them as like new wine needing a different treatment andapproach (new wineskin) which he offers. The same can surely be said when manyyears later, Gentiles would be accepted into the Kingdom of God, the movementof Yeshua. They would also need a ‘new’ or different approach as they would nothave grown up with the ‘oracles of God’, with anything like the knowledge ofthe Tanakh and mitzvot (commandments) that the Jewish people have from birth.This ‘new wineskin’ essentially encompasses the Ten Commandments plus the fourNoahide Laws as detailed in Acts 15. I have dealt in a little detail with theedicts of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) in my article ‘Circumcision – A Stepof Obedience?’.

This parable has nothing to do with acomparison between living under the ‘letter of Torah (Law)’ or the ‘Spirit ofTorah’. I have dealt with this issue elsewhere. See for example, ‘Siblings ofthe King: Living in the will of the Father’. The well known scholar James Dunn also discusses this verycommonly misunderstood phrase in ‘The Theology of Paul the Apostle’.

For a much more in-depth look at the‘wineskins’ parable I highly recommend ‘The Old is Better: Parables of Patched Garment and Wineskins asElaboration of a Chreia in Luke 5:33-39 about Feasting with Jesus.’ ByAnders Eriksson (http://www.ars-rhetorica.net/Queen/VolumeSpecialIssue2/Articles/Eriksson.pdf )

Who is Jesus?

2011-12-09T13:42:00.001+10:00

His correct (shortened) name is Yeshua.

He was born into a Jewish family; raised under Torah; learned obedience to his parents Mirriam and Yosef; learned the Tanakh intimately; learned early in his life that he was anointed by the Almighty (of course, it didn’t hurt that his parents, Simeon, Anna, Zechariah & Elizabeth, the wise men from the East - probably diaspora Jews from Babylon, and the shepherds all knew he was something special when he was born); worked as a stonemason (and/or carpenter) around the Galilee, then around the age of 30 years, having helped raised his siblings as his human father, Yosef had died early, set off as an itinerant preacher and informed his Jewish brethren that if they joined him, the would become part of a ‘movement’, the Kingdom of God (which has both a present sense and a future, fuller inauguration – yet pending).

He told all who would listen that his mission was to preach the good news of the Kingdom of God (Luke 4:43) and that he and his followers were bringing this message to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (i.e. Jews not Gentiles – he of course knew also from the Tanakh that Gentiles would be included in due time).

He, being far more knowledgeable on the Hebrew Scriptures that anyone else, knew that he was the ‘Anointed One’ (Messiah) of Deut 18, Ps 110 (the most cited scripture from the Tanakh in the NT), Ps 2 and many other scriptures.

He called sinners (the lost sheep, which by implication means not all of Israel were lost …), to repent, that is to turn back to YHWH (meaning they were once – when children – right with the Almighty). Sinners like Zaccheus, did indeed repent and Yeshua told him that he and his household had that day found salvation (note this was before the cross and did not require any blood atonement, though it would have required Zaccheus to follow through on his words to the full extent as required by Torah).

Yeshua lived and demonstrated a life in communion with the Almighty (unlike most of his fellow Israelites who called the Almighty, ‘Our Father, our King’ - Avinu Malkeinu in Hebrew (Isaiah 63:16), Yeshua called him ‘My Father’, such was his intimacy. He could even say ‘I and my Father are one’ because his purpose was exactly that of his Father, just as the prophecy of Deut 18 had predicted.

Yeshua lived the ultimate example – he said “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.” (Jn 15:12-14).

Yeshua said this knowing that he would one day lay his life down, just as the Tanakh had foretold (see Ps 2:6 for example - “I pour out (as a libation) my king on Zion, my holy hill.”).

When Yeshua was resurrected he ascended to his Father and presented himself as both the wave sheaf (‘first fruits’ of a new humanity) offering, as well as the new High Priest (a role he has undertaken to this day).

So as the Messiah of Israel, the anointed one of Ps 2, Ps 110, Isa 49, etc., he presently performs the duties of High Priest, which in part is being a mediator (1 Tim 2:5) for all those who have the faith OF Yeshua (Rom 3:22, Rev 14:12), which is the faith of Abraham, and that is faithfulness in (trusting in and obedience to) the Almighty.

As I am sure there are a few questions with this brief overview of ‘who is Jesus’, I recommend my articles ‘Psalm 2 verse 6’, ‘The Faith of Jesus’, “Yeshua The High Priest’ and 'Isaiah 49 – a commentary’ as a bare minimum, especially as some of your translations will have different renderings. See www.circumcisedheart.info

Rabbi, what must I do to inherit eternal life?

2011-12-06T16:11:00.001+10:00

Luke10 tells an early teaching episode in Jerusalem where Yeshua speaks with alawyer or scribe.

Luke(10:25-28) tells the story in the following words: “Rabbi, what must I do to get[literally, ‘inherit’] eternal life?”

Yeshuaanswers the man, “What is written in the Torah? How do you read what you findthere?”

Theman responds by saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,with all your soul, and with all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself.”

Thescribe, has neatly combined two famous “You shall love” Torah passages (Deut6:5 – part of the Shema, and Lev 19:18 – quoted by the Apostle Paul in Gal 5:14),a combination that was already known before the time of Yeshua.

Yeshuareplies, “You have answered right. Do this and you will live.”

AsLuke records this story the scribe then asked Yeshua, “Who is my neighbor” and inYeshua’ answer he told the story well-known to all as “the Good Samaritan” —the story of a Samaritan who helped a Jew who had fallen among thieves on theroad to Jericho.

Inthe Sermon on the Mount there is a long discussion by Yeshua of hisinterpretation of the Torah and it ends up also by discussing the “who is myneighbor” question (cf. Matt 5:43-48).

Itis possible then that here, Yeshua gave a similar answer to his Sermon on theMount speech, as both ‘answers’ or teachings end up in the same place.

Considerthat the scribe has called Yeshua, ‘Rabbi’ ( that is, my teacher) and thus isseeking Yeshua’s explanation of how his teaching fits with the Almighty’sdivine instructions (Torah).

Seethen how Yeshua may have continued to answer the scribe by turning to thosestanding around who have heard the conversation of the scribe and the one hecalls rabbi:

“Donot think that I have come to do away with the Torah and the Prophets. I havenot come to do away with them, but to strengthen what they teach” (Matt 5:17).He follows this with a summary of five vital, ethical commandments.

Thenhe talks about “whoever relaxes one of these least commandments and teachesothers to do so,” and then speaks of “whoever does them and teaches them.”

Thefirst kind of person will be called least in the Kingdom of God while thesecond type of person will be called great in the Kingdom of God.

Inthe first instance, Yeshua means that amongst his followers, his disciples whomhave already ‘entered’ the Kingdom of God, those who have a reverence for allthat the Torah is meant to teach, are the ones who will be respected.

Inis instructive to read these scriptures in the order below (suggested by ProfDavid Flusser):

1.Luke 10:25-28

2.Matthew 5:17-48

3.Luke 10:29-37

Foryour convenience, quoted here from the Complete Jewish Bible by David Stern:

Luke10: 25An expert in Torah stood up to try and trap him by asking, "Rabbi, whatshould I do to obtain eternal life?" 26 But Yeshua said to him,"What is written in the Torah? How do you read it?" 27 Heanswered, "You are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart, with allyour soul, with all your strength and with all your understanding; and yourneighbor as yourself." 28 "That's the right answer,"Yeshua said. "Do this, and you will have life."

Matt5:17"Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I havecome not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I tell you thatuntil heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will passfrom the Torah -- not until everything that must happen has happened. 19So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so willbe called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and soteaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 20 For I tell youthat unless your righteousness is far greater than that of the Torah-teachersand P'rushim, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven! 21"You have heard that our fathers were told, `Do not murder,'l and thatanyone who commits murder will be subject to judgment. 22 But I tell youthat anyone who nurses anger against his brother will be subject to judgment;that whoever calls his brother, `You good-for-nothing!' will be brought beforethe Sanhedrin; that whoever says, `Fool!' incurs the penalty of burning in thefire of Gei-Hinnom! 23 So if you are offering your gift at the Templealtar and you remember there that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift where it is by the altar, and go, make peace with your brother.Then come back and offer your gift. 25 If someone sues you, come toterms with him quickly, while you and he are on the way to court; or he mayhand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer of the court, and youmay be thrown in jail! 26 Yes indeed! I tell you, you will certainly notget out until you have paid the last penny. 27 "You have heard thatour fathers were told, `Do not commit adultery.'m 28 But I tell you thata man who even looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her hasalready committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eyemakes you sin, gouge it out and throw it away! Better that you should lose onepart of you than have your whole body thrown into Gei-Hinnom. 30 And ifyour right hand makes you sin, cut it off and throw it away! Better that youshould lose one part of you than have your whole body thrown into Gei-Hinnom. 31"It was said, `Whoever divorces his wife must give her a get.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground offornication, makes her an adulteress; and that anyone who marries a divorceecommits adultery. 33 "Again, you have heard that our fathers weretold, `Do not break your oath,' and `Keep your vows to ADONAI.' 34 But Itell you not to swear at all -- not `by heaven,' because it is God's throne; 35not `by the earth,' because it is his footstool;p and not `by Yerushalayim,' becauseit is the city of the Great King. 36 And don't swear by your head,because you can't make a single hair white or black. 37 Just let your`Yes' be a simple `Yes,' and your `No' a simple `No'; anything more than thishas its origin in evil. 38 "You have heard that our fathers weretold, `Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to standup against someone who does you wrong. On the contrary, if someone hits you onthe right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too! 40 If someonewants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well! 41 Andif a soldier forces you to carry his pack for one mile, carry it for two! 42When someone asks you for something, give it to him; when someone wants toborrow something from you, lend it to him. 43 "You have heard thatour fathers were told, `Love your neighbors -- and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45Then you will become children of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sunshine on good and bad people alike, and he sends rain to the righteous and theunrighteous alike. 46 What reward do you get if you love only those wholove you? Why, even tax-collectors do that! 47 And if you are friendlyonly to your friends, are you doing anything out of the ordinary? Even theGoyim do that! 48 Therefore, be perfect, just as your Father in heavenis perfect.

Luke10: 29But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Yeshua, "And who is my`neighbor'?" 30 Taking up the question, Yeshua said: "A manwas going down from Yerushalayim to Yericho when he was attacked by robbers.They stripped him naked and beat him up, then went off, leaving him half dead. 31By coincidence, a cohen was going down on that road; but when he saw him, hepassed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levi who reached the placeand saw him also passed by on the other side. 33 "But a man fromShomron who was traveling came upon him; and when he saw him, he was moved withcompassion. 34 So he went up to him, put oil and wine on his wounds andbandaged them. Then he set him on his own donkey, brought him to an inn andtook care of him. 35 The next day, he took out two days' wages, gavethem to the innkeeper and said, `Look after him; and if you spend more thanthis, I'll pay you back when I return.' 36 Of these three, which oneseems to you to have become the `neighbor' of the man who fell amongrobbers?" 37 He answered, "The one who showed mercy towardhim." Yeshua said to him, "You go and do as he did."

Yeshua is teaching us that the Torah tells you more than at first itseems to be telling you. The outward prohibition reveals only the end danger ofa process of ethical deterioration.

That is whyJesus calls ‘great’ the man in his Kingdom who upholds them and ‘little’, (orleast) the man who makes “little” of them.

Jesus appearsto be informing us that behindeach given commandment there lies an ethical and psychological danger or needwhich must first be faced before the outward and final prohibition even comeswithin the range of possibility.

To sum up theway Jesus probes the conscience as he teaches the Torah:

“Murder isterrible but beware! Anger is almost worse and must be dealt with before

it bears thedeadly fruit of murder.

Adultery isterrible but long before it takes place outwardly it takes place in the

heart.

Swearingfalsely to a neighbor’s hurt shows how dangerous is lying but in any case

swearing itselfhas become meaningless as a protection against lying so let a man’s word

be simply Yesor No.

Peoplecallously say “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” but, like murder, a man must

learn to bitehis tongue and not increase evil by taking revenge. Two wrongs do not a

right make.

The Torah saysthat you are to love your neighbor as yourself. Popularly people

like to add,“Ah yes, and that means you should hate the one who hates you!” Turn this

around, saysJesus, and consider even your enemy your neighbor! Pray for him and do

good to him.”

Paraphrased from 'Jesus, Rabbi & Lord' (Chapter 16) – by Dr Robert L Lindsey

John's prologue in its Jewish context

2011-11-25T22:37:00.001+10:00

Although I study and write a lot on theology, I have written very little on the falsehood of the Trinity, despite having spent much time in debates on this issue.

Part of my reason for not feeling the need to write much on this topic is the excellence of books such as ‘The Doctrine of the Trinity’ by Anthony Buzzard and the late Charles Hunting, and ‘They Never Told Me This in Church’ by Gregory Deuble.

Anthony Buzzard has also written other great books on this topic and many very helpful articles.

I would like to put forward a few comments below though, because I believe this aspect has not, to the best of my memory (it's been a few years since reading their books), been covered by any of these authors.

John’s Prologue:

Obviously, Trinitarians see John’s prologue as strongly inferring some preexistence of the Messiah and some sort of inference of his deity.

The classic mistake though that most Christians make is to start with the NT, and especially to start with John’s Gospel, as if the NT stands on it’s own and the context of a Jewish disciple writing about the Messiah Yeshua around 96 CE, is a context with no prior history.

This very serious and very prevalent error is so overwhelmingly common amongst Christians.

This is not where Yeshua started; this is not where the Apostle Paul started. They both relied on the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh. Both Yeshua when he repeatedly said ‘It is written …’ and the Apostle Paul when he said “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16) were referring to the Tanakh.

Thus to understand anything in the NT and to appreciate the intent of the NT authors such as John, we need to look first into the Tanakh to understand their perspective and biblical reality, but also to documents from the inter-testamental time, to appreciate common Jewish thinking, understanding and terminology.

In this respect even sectarian works from this period can be relevant. That is, John’s Gospel was not written in a vacuum. As a follower of Yeshua; a member of the Christian sect of the proto-Judaism (to use David Flusser’s term) of his time, the Apostle John was a Hebraist and essentially Pharisaic in biblical orientation.

So with this appreciation, it is worth asking if the concepts and ideas presented in John’s prologue were already existent or even prevalent in the Tanakh and in Jewish thought of his time.

What we find is that John’s prologue, for example John 1:3 "through him (the Word) everything came to be: no single thing was created without him" is not only a common biblical understanding from Genesis on, but was a Jewish ‘commonplace’. That is, it was already part of Jewish writings prior to John.

For example in the Book of Jubilees we read that God "has created everything by His word" (12:4), and so it is also said in Wisdom of Solomon 9:1.

Even more similar to John's prologue is the wording of two sentences in the Dead Sea Scrolls: "By His (God's) knowledge everything came to be, and everything which is happening — He establishes it by his design and without Him [nothing] is done" (1QS XI: 11).

And "By the wisdom of Thy knowledge Thou didst establish their destiny ere they came into being, and according [Thy will] everything came to be, and without Thee [nothing] is done" (1QH 1:19-20).

These two kindred sentences in the Scrolls stress the Jewish sectarian doctrine of predestination and not the Christian ‘hypostatic’ (‘essence’ – a term used to imply a separate personality or second person of God) aspect of knowledge and wisdom, by which everything came to be.

These purely sectarian Scrolls had no interest in a hypostatic point of view and so any later hypostatic interpretation by Christianity would appear to be a seriously flawed and mistaken understanding.

The idea that God created the world through his ‘word’ is a Jewish concept. In fact, the Tanakh informs us that Almighty created the entire universe through ‘fiats’; that is, through His word.

Not only does the ‘word’ of God have a creative function, it also has an analytical function.

Consider for example, Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit. ...and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Here we see the ‘word’ or ‘logos’ having an analytical function. Interestingly, even the Hellenistic Jew Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE) took this position. In Wikipedia we read: ‘Some scholars hold that his concept of the Logos as God's creative principle influenced early Christology. Other scholars, however, deny direct influence but say both Philo and early Christianity borrow from a common source. For Philo, Logos was God's "blueprint for the world", a governing plan.’ - wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

So, when we consider the context and historical background and influences that existed in John’s worldview, we should see that any ‘hypostatic’ consideration was far from his mind and intentions. In fact, as many have pointed out, John himself makes this abundantly clear when he states the purpose of his Gospel (and prologue) in John 20:31 “… but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Further on the LXX and Hebrews 10:5

2011-11-15T22:22:00.001+10:00

Areply to a fellow Christian author, scholar and Bible lover:

Iam thrilled that we agree that the Tanakh can not be contradicted.

Thusif there is some text in the NT that contradicts it, or at least, ourinterpretation of it, is contradictory, then we need to either reassess ourinterpretation or identify this text as a corruption (if we agree that theoriginal autographs of the NT were in perfect accord with the Tanakh).

Isubmit that the common understanding and interpretation of Hebrews 10:5 iscontradictory to the Tanakh, as it implies that sacrifices alone can bringatonement (as opposed to a sacrifice being a loving act of a repentant andobedient heart) and further that the sacrifice of Yeshua’s body of the crosshas brought atonement and salvation for all who call upon his name.

Ialso contend that it is your prior acceptance of the ‘atonement sacrifice’doctrine that leads you to read and interpret Hebrews 10:5 as you do.

I alsocontend that, even the LXX version of Ps 40:7 quoted here (Ps 39:7 in the LXX) maybe being interpreted incorrectly.

Thatis, while I believe the Hebrew version would have originally been used here,even the LXX version, if read with a doctrinally valid mindset, is possibly stillacceptable and true to the Tanakh (though some of what is then implied is not).

Firstly,to further put my case here I would like to accentuate the role or lackthereof, of the LXX in the times and lives of the NT authors.

Firstly,I assume you are aware and agree that Yeshua and his disciples and apostleswere:

1) not Essenes (though John the Baptistmay once have been one and Yeshua was clearly very aware of their existence andteachings) – Yeshua certainly rejected their (Hellenistic) asceticism, as didPaul;

2) essentially Pharisaic intheir doctrines. That is, they accepted the veracity and authority of theTanakh for teaching, training and good works (2 Tim 3:16).

Inthis regard I have previously commented on the recent scholarship andrevelation that we have gained from the DSS’s (and not just the Qumran Cavescrolls).

Tofurther highlight the implications I wish to re-enforce here, we read in ‘The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls inEnglish’ (2004) and translated by Geza Vermes:

- “most scrolls are written inHebrew, a smaller portion in Aramaic and only a few attest the ancient Greek orLXX version of the Bible” (p 10/11)

- “… Hebrew scriptural manuscripts… are remarkable for their general conformity …” – compared to the fluidity ofthe translations into Greek, Latin or Syriac. – [even] ‘extreme fluidity’. (p 11)

Thatis, from these amazing finds and a great deal of study, we now know that onlyamongst the Essenes scrolls do we find any Greek or LXX scrolls and even thenonly small fragments. Only amongst the Essenes do we find significantchanges, both editorial and perhaps unintentional. Amongst all the other ‘DSS’finds that date to the first century CE and earlier, we find a strongconformity to the earliest Hebrew manuscripts.

Theevidence then is that Yeshua and the NT authors would not have trusted theGreek, the LXX! (My LXX article on my website gives a lot more evidence forthis.). Therefore, even if some of the NT books as we have them today, wereoriginally penned in Greek, it still seems unlikely that the authors would haveutilised the LXX at all widely, if at all.

Giventhis information, let us consider the understanding of Ps 40:7-9 in itsoriginal context in the Hebrew Scriptures, before trying to understand andinterpret its use in Hebrews 10.

Firstly,we need to note from the original context that this Psalm was written by anauthor (David?) who ‘confesses his sin and pleads for an end the God’sdisciplinary dealings with him’ (FF Bruce[1])

Ps40:6-12 (KJV): “Sacrifice and offering thou didstnot desire; mine ears hast thou opened:burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, Icome: in the volume of the book it iswritten of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. I have preachedrighteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I havedeclared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thylovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation. Withhold not thou thytender mercies from me, O LORD: let thy lovingkindness and thy truthcontinually preserve me. For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mineiniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; theyare more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me.”

Thus,in the sense that the NT authors now make this a Messianic Psalm, we clearlydon’t read into it that Yeshua sinned. In this sense, I would agree that theTanakh has at times in the NT been used to bring new understanding, but neverto abolish Torah or previous introduced everlasting covenants.

The ‘THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY: A CRITICAL ANDEXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF PSALMS’ (By Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D.,D.Litt. Professor Of Theological Encyclopædia And Symbolics UnionTheological Seminary, New York And Emilie GraceBriggs, B.D.), interestingly translates this portion of the Psalm thus:

“PEACE offering andgrain offering hast Thou no delight in; then had I the covenant; Whole burnt offering with sin hast Thou not asked; then didst Thoucommand me. Lo, I am come, in the book roll it is prescribed to me. Thy will Idelight in, and Thy Law is within me. I have preached righteousness in thegreat congregation; behold my lips.”

Someof their very detailed commentary is worth quoting:

“Sinvitiated all sacrifices; sacrifices were of value only as expressive ofrighteousness. EVs. and most scholars, ancient and modern,think of sin offering here rather than sin. This is tempting in order tocomplete the enumeration of the great classes of offerings; but the sinoffering is not known in the Psalter elsewhere; it is not known to theliterature upon which this Ps. depends, especially in this verse; the Hebrewword used here nowhere else has that meaning; and even with the sin offeringthe list of offerings would be incomplete without the Asham already used Is. 5310.—Hast Thou no delight in]. Protasis of interrogative clause in order tothe apodosis of the last clause of v. This is based on Ho. 66: “For I delight in kindness andnot in peace offering; and in the knowledgeof God rather than whole burnt offerings;” cf. Is. 111 Ps. 5118, and especially 1 S. 1522: “Hath Yahweh as great delight in burntofferings and peace offerings as in obeying the voice of Yahweh?”—Hast Thou not asked]. This is based on Je.722–23, “For Ispake not unto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burntofferings or peace offerings; but this thing I command them, saying:Hearken unto my voice,” cf. Ps. 50:8–10 Mi. 66–8. This is essentiallytrue so far as its antith. is concerned, but it needs qualification, for notonly the code of D, Dt. 12, 16‚ upon which this Ps. relies, but also the codeof E, Ex. 23:14–19, which antedates Hosea and Micah,prescribes just these sacrifices as an essential part of the ritual of worshipfrom the earliest times. At the same time, all these sacrifices are primitive,and antedate all Hebrew Law, and are common to the worship of Israel and allhis neighbours; so that they are not as sacrifices in any way distinctive of thereligion of Yahweh, or to be regarded as for the first time commanded in HisLaw. They are incorporated in His Law and given a meaning, and that meaning isHis command, rather than the sacrifices themselves. This is the unanimousconsensus of the prophets from Samuel onwards. These questions as to sacrifices as such, as external ritual ceremonies, not being required, are in order tothe statement in the apodosis[2] of what Yahweh did require. —Then didst Thou command me]. … “ears didst Thou bore me.” This strangestatement is variously explained. … The reference is rather to the creative power of God, who dugout the ears and made them organs of hearing, in order that His people mighthear and obey Him, cf. Ex. 411 Mt. 139. Theemendation that I have proposed gives fine parall., and is especiallyappropriate to the book of the covenant in the subsequent context.— Lo, I amcome], calling attention to promptobedience.—in the book roll], the Deuteronomic Code as writtenon the roll, cf. Je. 362. 4.—it is prescribed to me], as RVm., Bä., Dr., Kirk., al., rather than “written of me,” concerning me, of G,J, EVs.— 9. Thy willI delight in], is in emphatic antith. to the offerings of v.7. The psalmist delights in what Yahweh delights in, and not in what Hedoes not delight in. The will of Yahweh is expressed in the Law, which is, as the previous context indicates, recorded in thebook roll. A scribe has made it more emphatic by prefixing, “To do,” which,however, makes the line overfull. It is an unnecessary gloss. The Law of Yahweh waswritten in the book roll; but more than that, the psalmist says, “it is withinme”], literally in the midst of my inwards, v. 2215; theintestines being the seat ofthe emotions, affections, and passions, according to the Heb. conception; andso, “within my heart,”

In this interesting commentary Briggs agrees that the phrase in question“mine ears hast thou opened” both indicates thatthe Almighty has made the Psalmist able to hear and willing to hear.

Baigent[3] agrees. Hestates: “Verse 6:This is not a repudiation of sacrifice as such, but a recognition that doingGod’s will is more important than ritual observances … ‘my ears … opened’ i.eyou have made me obedient’.”

What I see in these commentaries as well though, is that ‘a body they hast prepared’ (i.e. the LXXrendition, if this is what it originally was) can mean simply that we all havebody’s with ears to hear. That is, even the LXX version, if it also is not tobe contradictory in implying a sacrifice, is stating the same thing – a call toobedience. And thus in Heb 10, this is the intention. The focus then is on theLIFE of Yeshua being in total obedience, not on his death.

God has always wanteda total; that is with the whole body; absolute loyal obedience to His will.This is what Yeshua gave with his life to the very point of offering it up forhis friends just as he had said, ‘no greater love …’.

Turning now toHebrews 10 though, is this understanding consistent, and what about the furthercommentary in Heb 10: 8-14 that seems fairly emphatic that the sacrifice of thecross ‘offered for all time a singlesacrifice for sin’?

I would argue for twomain reasons that this section is corrupted and not original. These reasonsbeing a) the context and b) the false doctrine of complete atonement through asingle sacrifice.

The context:

Hebrews as a bookspeaks of a new priesthood NOT a new covenant. Frank has very ably illustratedthis in his article, ‘The Covenant inHebrews 8 & 9‘[4].Look even closer at the context of Chapter 10. It starts off speaking about thefailure of the sacrificial system, that is the Levitical priesthood, to bringsalvation and introduces the quote from Ps 40:7-9 which supports this comment.In verses 15 onwards the author of Hebrews then speaks of obedience of theheart being the way forward and how the new Priesthood of Yeshua enables this(again, I try to explain this in my ‘Yeshuathe High Priest’[5] article).

The doctrine:

Just as an overview[6]the concept of ‘original sin’ is seriously flawed as is also a number ofdoctrines that this leads to, including the doctrine that a blood sacrifice iscritical and indispensable for the cleansing of sin.

Neither the Tanakh,nor any common Jewish position, has ever argued that the shedding of blood isthe only and necessary ingredient for repentance and forgiveness of sin.

In fact, in the Tanakhwe learn that only after repentance and remedying of wrong, can a free willoffering for sin be presented on the altar. There is no question that Hebrews9:22 “Indeed, under the law almost everythingis purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is noforgiveness of sins. “(ESV) in a corruption (perhaps from a misreading,misunderstanding or twisting of the words of Lev 17:11) in some way.

For a start, Mal 3:7and Zec 3:4-5 clearly show the error of this statement. In fact, in the case of‘intentional sin’ even a blood sacrifice is not enough.

Lev 5:11 alsodeclares that a grain offering (i.e. no blood) can bring atonement.

So, I would suggestthat the presupposition that the blood sacrifice of Yeshua was a necessaryevent for the atonement of humanity leads you to misread and misinterpret thisquotation of the Tanakh.

[1] ‘New International BibleCommentary’, 1986 (edited by FF Bruce). Psalm 40 commentary by John W Baigent.

[2] i.e the clause expressingthe consequence

[3] Footnote 1

[4] The Covenant in Hebrews 8 & 9 http://theolivetreeconnection.com/Articles/The%20Covenant%20in%20Hebrews%208%20&%209.pdf

[5] see www.circumcisedheart.info or click on http://www.charismacomputers.com.au/Yeshua%20the%20High%20Priest.pdf

[6] A good place to look for alittle more depth would be Section II: Salvation & Atonement of ‘TheTeacher and the Preacher’ by Moshe Avraham Kempinski

Addressing questions - More on the LXX

2011-10-22T17:16:00.000+10:00

Below aresome more comments in response to some issues and questions raised by those whobelieve the Greek NT is the original and inspired version:

Some of theseLXX supporters argue that the NT authors were “notsimply parroting Old Testament passages.”

If we had noevidence to the contrary then this would be a reasonable assumption andprobably valid statement. However, it needs to be recognized that this is anassumption based on the supposition that the NT has we have it, despite itsmany varied translations, is an accurate transmission of the original authorsintentions.

Thus, youcan’t start with this as your conclusion. Also you need to provide evidencethat this statement or understanding is the best possible understanding of thecircumstances and facts.

While theevidence may once have appeared to support this assumption, today there is agreat deal of evidence for alternative understandings, such as the one I amarguing for.

In thecomplete article at circumcisedheart.info I have, I believe presented a greatdeal of evidence to show that the statement above bt LXX supporters is not avalid conclusion from the best evidence available today. Below I will offersome further evidence.

Hebrews 10:5quoting of Ps 40:

“Regarding NT usage of the Septuagint (LXX), and sticking withexamples from Hebrews; it seems some do not appreciate or comprehend that theauthor of Hebrews (and other NT authors) was not simply parroting Old Testamentpassages. Rather he used them to support whatever theological point(s) hewas presenting in a given passage and selected which OT verse(s) to useaccordingly. Thus, for example, in Hebrews 10:5 the author quoted the LXXversion of Psalm 40:6-8 (“but a bodyyou prepared for me”) rather than the Hebrew or MT (“you pierced ears for me”).This was partly due to a theological point the author wished to make in verse10 (“By which will we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once forall”). Not unrelated to this selection of the Greek version of Psalm 40:6-8 wasthat biblical Hebrew had no word that precisely corresponded to the Greek sōma or “body.””

My response:

This is oneof the most clear cut examples of LXX supporters error.

Consider theimmediate context of Hebrews 10:5-7 here:

Thereforewhen he comes into the world, he says “Sacrifice and offering you didn’tdesire, but you prepared a body for me; You had no pleasure in wholeburnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (inthe scroll of the book it is written of me) to do your will, O God.’” (ESV)

When we lookat the context we see the argument that sacrifices alone do not bring salvation(this of course is clear in a great many passages from Lev 17 to Psalm 51,etc.), and yet the very insertion from the LXX you all argue for ‘but youprepared a body for me’ is arguing for that very thing!

To put itmost simply you have here that ‘God does not want A but He prepared A’! The‘body’ is a reference to the sacrifice of Yeshua!

Insteadconsider the alternative, the MT version of Ps 40 which has ‘my ears you haveopened’. This verse and phrase is understood to be one of the most crucial byJudaism and yet, you believe it warrants redacting. Judaism understands theincredible importance of this verse that you all seem to have missed (a goodintroduction is found in Moshe Avraham Kempinski’s ‘The Heart of a People’ onp30-33).

Listening toGod (lishmoa) is one of the most important aspects of our lives and ourrelationship with HaShem. He is speaking to us every second of the day. Thechallenge is to listen. While this is clear in the Shema which begins with‘Hear O’Israel’ it is most powerfully expressed in Ps 40:7 where God simplystates: “I don’t need your fat, I don’t need your sacrifices, what I need isyour listening ear.”

Now put thiscrucial truth back into Hebrews and we have the author of Hebrews informing usthat Yeshua quoted this Psalm and added some explanation to it. EssentiallyYeshua said: “My Father doesn’t want my fat, myFather doesn’t need my sacrifices, what He needs is my listening ear.” So Isay:‘Behold, I have come (in the Tanach it is written of me) to do your will, OGod.’”(- that is, I am listening Father and as a consequence I will obey!)

This vitaltruth revealed in Ps 40 is accepted and adopted by Yeshua, yet you think herejected Torah by changing it, even when he said he would not change one yod orstroke! (Matt 5:17-18)

It is truethat subsequent verses of Hebrews appear to change the context to suggest thata single sacrifice can bring salvation to all, but the sum total of the Tanachand the NT illustrate that this is not so. It is always repentance producingobedience that brings salvation not sacrifice (this is just one of the reasonswhy many scholars seriously question the authorship and inspiration ofHebrews).

LXXSupporter:

“Underlying much of thisdiscussion is a fundamental difference in how one interprets the NT. Inthe NT the primary interpretive key for understanding all that God has done inthe past is Jesus Christ, especially in light of his death andresurrection. In Jesus God’s “mystery” previously hidden is nowrevealed. These things “were written down for our instruction, upon whomthe ends of the ages have come.” Related to this is the theme of fulfillment. God’s past revelation was partial, incomplete, promissory, revealed in typesand shadows; but the substance, the fulfillment has now come in the person ofJesus Christ (e.g., Hebrews 1:1-2, 8:5, 10:1, John 1:14-18, 2 Corinthians 4:6,Colossians 2:17, 1Peter 1:10-122). "The Law was given through Moses;grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ." The authors of the NTread the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus Christ, not vice versa, thoughit appears that some today are attempting to interpret Jesus through the lensof the Torah.“

My response:

This bringsme to what is perhaps the greatest error that you are making and that reallyastounds me. This comment, whether intended or not displays a Trinitarianmindset!

To say that the Tanakh and NT needs to beread through the lens (or ‘primary interpretative key’) of ‘Jesus Christ’, isnot only back to front, it is making Yeshua the Messiah out to be God AlmightyHImself!

This is notwhat Yeshua said.

Every timepeople tried to lift him up and point to him as the ultimate he pointed to hisFather, to HaShem. In many places he states that he only speaks and does whatthe Father tells him (in fulfillment of Deut 18). He always took the focus offhimself and pointed to God. As the Almighty’s perfect agent, this was alwayshis intention.

In myopinion, he would be appalled that you are trying to make him out to be theUltimate, to be God. He is certainly God’s ultimate messenger but whenchallenged he always said ‘It is written’ (referring to the Tanach as theultimate Word of God). The Apostle Paul did the same when he stated in 2 Tim3:16 that “All scripture is given by inspirationof God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, forinstruction in righteousness”. Paul was also clearly referring tothe Tanach.

LXX Supporter:

“Likewise in Hebrews 1:7, in orderto emphasize the point that angels are servants and therefore inferior to theSon, the author quoted Psalm 104:4 from the LXX where the subjects andpredicates were reversed. Thus the LXX reads, “Who makes his angels windsand his servants flames of fire,” whereas the M.T. reads, “who makes the windsyour messengers, fire and flame your ministers.””

My Response:

Again, theGreek leads to confusion. The Hebrew makes it clear that ‘messengers’ of Godare being referred to. In this context, the wind and fire (for example withElijah on Mt Carmel) can be ‘messengers’ of God, as can be human beings and the‘host of heaven’.

But thereference in Ps 104 is clearly to the wind and fire as the sentences bothbefore and after are referring to creation, to nature and not to man. The LXXcan be understood to mean the same thing, but again, the change appears to be adeliberate attempt to distort the message or to misapply it. The use of theHebrew or MT text of Ps 104:4 would not really have reduced the impact andtruth with regards the authority of the Son.

LXX Supporter:

“Those who claim the NT was originally composed inHebrew need to explain how a Hebrew original could produce a document like theEpistle to the Hebrews (and others), a letter that displays the author’s greatskill not only in Greek but also proficiency in the ancient art of rhetoric,beginning with the letter’s first sentence in 1:1-4. There the authorlays out key themes of the letter using literary devices like alliteration(e.g., polumerōs kai polutropōs palaiho theos lalésa tois patrasin en tois prophétais),opens with compound adverbs for which there are no equivalents in Hebrew (polumerōs, polutropōs – “many parts,” “many ways”), presents key themesthrough a series of subordinate clauses (whereas Hebrew is highly paratactical[parataxis]), uses several compound substantives (other than in proper namesHebrew does not lend itself easily to the formation of compound substantives,verbs and so on), etc. Put another way, if the Epistle to the Hebrews wasoriginally composed in Hebrew what we have today is not simply a translationinto Greek but a major if not complete rewrite of the original.”

My Response:

As for thefancy Greek alliteration refered to, I am not a Greek reader, let alone ascholar of Greek, so I will take his word for the presence of suchalliteration. I don’t see this though as any more than the effort of someskilled translators and commentators (many Rabbi’s argue that all translationsare commentary – they are referring to the Tanakh, though this statementapplies even more to the NT), and I don’t question that implication that whatwe now have with respect to Hebrews appears to be a major rewrite.

LXX Supporter:

“Jesus warned against pouring newwine into old wine-skins. Attempts to domesticate the Christ of scriptureby pouring the new wine of the Spirit into the old wine-skins of Second TempleJudaism are doomed to fail. If they do not burst the old skins the sweetwine of the Spirit will be turned into the vinegar of the death-dealing letterof the Law (2 Corinthians 3:6). Likewise Jesus spoke of the scribe “instructedin the kingdom of the heavens, who is like a householder that produced from histreasure things new and old.” There is both continuity and discontinuitybetween the Old Covenant and the New.”

My Responsere new wineskins:

Again, thisis an incorrect application of this saying/parable of Yeshua. Sadly, this ispossibly another expected response by scholars who have failed to recognizetheir ‘Replacement Theology’ mindset.

Thistraditional interpretation of the parable about the wine and thewineskins, (Luke 5:37-39), was first proposed by the seriouslyanti-semitic Marcion in his successful efforts to separate Christianity from Judaism(I would recommend a reading of Frank Selch’s book on ReplacementTheology). Perhaps a reread of Luke 5:39 might at least raise enough of aquestion to invite a reconsideration on this?

This quote ofYeshua is in fact best interpreted as stating that it is better that thedisciples feast when Jesus is with them than that they mourn when he is not,and as an invitation to the Pharisees to join them.

I would alsorecommend reading ‘The Old is Better: Parables of Patched Garment andWineskins as Elaboration of a Chreia in Luke 5:33-39 about Feasting with Jesus.’ By Anders Eriksson (http://www.ars-rhetorica.net/Queen/VolumeSpecialIssue2/Articles/Eriksson.pdf)

The Future:

May I suggestwe all consider the future. We read in Zephaniah 3:9 that “For then will I turnto the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon Adonai, to serveHim with one consent.”

What willthis language be? Greek? No. It will most likely be Hebrew (it could be atotally new language though there appears no strong evidence for this). TheAlmighty’s Name is Hebrew; when He wrote with His own hand it was in Hebrew;the Tanakh was written almost totally in Hebrew (and there are very goodreasons for the few portions which were written in Aramaic); when Yeshua spokefrom His right hand in Heaven he spoke in Hebrew. The Almighty’s Hebrew Name iseven written into the hills of Shiloh where the Tabernacle stood for 369 years.

I believe Ihave given some very good reasons as to why the NT was almost certainly writtenin Hebrew. This consistency with it’s past and the future is rational andreasonable. The latest archeological supports this contention.

LXXSupporter:

“At the end of the day a keyproblem remains: whether there ever was a Hebrew original of the NT, nocopies of its text exist. Any attempt to reconstruct the “original” Hebrew textwill be based on conjecture. Attempts to recover it by translating the Greek NT"back" into Hebrew are fraught with problems. “

My Response:

However, youall point out that no original copies of the autographs in Hebrew are known toexist. While there are a number of possible reasons for this it is important toweigh the importance of this omission.

There arealso no copies of the ‘original’ Greek autographs either. While we havefragments perhaps from as early as 125 CE , we also have the Syrian Peshittafrom sometime earlier than 160- 180 CE, and the Khabouris Manuscript (Aramaic)is quite possibly just as early (estimated at around 165 CE).

When it comesto the real issue here of what language the quotations of the Tanakh wereoriginally from we have very good evidence, even buried in the later Greektranslations as I have previously outlined.

Above it isargued that “… Attempts to recover it bytranslating the Greek NT "back" into Hebrew are fraught with problems.”. This is simply not so and has been most amplydemonstrated by David Flusser and many others. I would highly recommend readingsome of Flusser’s books, especially his ‘Jesus’.

LXXSupporter:

“Youmake a lot of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the community at Qumran and how thisbrings convincing evidence for the priority of the Hebrew. One wouldthink it rather obvious that the Qumran community, in having rejected theMessiah and in seeking to promote the traditional faith of Israel would indeedgive priority to the Hebrew Scriptures. Did not this sectarian group viewitself as the true custodians of Israel? It would be rather surprising ifthey did not give us this evidence, would it not? You also fail tomention that at Qumran a second nearly complete Isaiah scroll has been foundwhich actually contains many textual variants from the complete Great IsaiahScroll, and that other fragmentary Hebrew MSS contain texts that appear closerto the Hebrew text underlying the LXX, as well as some that are closer to thetext of the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch. I think you shouldexercise much more caution before drawing such broad brush strokes from suchsectarian, fragmentary and partial evidence.”

My Response:

May Isuggest an excellent introduction to the DSS’s by Frank Moore Cross ‘The Textbehind the Text of the Hebrew Bible’ or even better the book ‘Understanding theDead Sea Scrolls’ edited by Hershel Shanks.

While all theevidence is not yet in from these great finds, there has been an awful lotlearned already. I will try and summarise some of this in terms of how itimpacts our discussion and Greg’s question regarding variant readings ofIsaiah.

Firstly, whenspeaking of the DSS we are not just talking about the Qumran caves (Essenes)but most critically also the Wadi Murabba’at; the Nabal Hever and the NabalSe’elim finds. Also critical are the finds from the Wadi ed-Daliyeh, north ofJericho (1962) and from Masada (63-64). The DSS have given scholars an enormousamount of information about the early transmission of biblical books; about thefixation of the text (canon) and about the procedures for how the canon of theTanakh came into being. Prior to these finds there had been little detailedinformation about how the Rabbinical Recession (MT) as used in Jerome’s day hadcome into being.

What hasemerged is that there are really three distinct major groups of texts. UsingCross’s naming these are the Palestinian group (mostly from theEssenes/Qumran), the Egyptian group (LXX, Greek versions of Samuel & Kings,a short Hebrew version of Jeremiah, etc) and the ‘Babylonian’ group.

It is theBabylonian group that appears to have been the work of Hillel and his son anddisciples. This text group canonized the Tanakh some time between the 2 revoltsof 70 and 135 CE and it is from this group that the Rabbinic Recession hasderived. This group is very conservative, ‘pristine’ and shows littlescribal editing, revision or modernizing. Most of the documents come from thesouthern caves and at Masada. This is where the authoritative Pharisaictext came from; the text that Yeshua would have used as he was in alllikelihood a Pharisee (again, see Flusser for extensive evidence of this).

The Essenes(Qumran) with their clear Hellenistic influences have provided a lot ofhelpful texts and information, and the variants such as the Isaiah variants,are generally attributable to their work.

When allthese finds are put together, they form a far from ‘partial and fragmentary’picture, but instead provide great evidence for the authority of the MT.

I hope thisvery short summary can help address this concern about the Isaiah variants.

Inconclusion, I find these arguments lacking in evidence and factualclarity.

Given thatthe hour appears late, we may all soon see where the truth lies when our JewishMessiah returns to his brethren and to all those grafted into the cultivatedOlive Tree.

Shalom!

Jeremiah16: 14-15, “Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, whenit shall no longer be said, As the LORD lives who brought up the people ofIsrael out of the land of Egypt, but As the LORD lives who brought up thepeople of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where hehad driven them. For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave totheir fathers.

Jeremiah 16: 19-21: OLORD, my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in the day of trouble, to youshall the nations come from the ends of the earth and say: Our fathers haveinherited nothing but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit. Canman make for himself gods?

Suchare not gods! Therefore, behold, I will make them know, this once I will makethem know my power and my might, and they shall know that my name is the LORD.

The Greek NT & the LXX - Heb 1:10?

2011-09-28T12:56:00.001+10:00

Oneof the objections that I have received to the LXX article was that Hebrews 1:10is problematic unless the LXX version of Ps 102:25 is used (where Hebrewsquotes from Ps 102).

Ps110:3 was also raised as another example of a verse that was considered moreappropriate in the LXX when it’s Messianic nature was considered.

Tobest appreciate the argument regarding the LXX version of Ps 102 within thecontext of Hebrews 1, I would recommend reading Appendix 3 of Sir AnthonyBuzzard’s excellent book ‘Jesus was Not a Trinitarian’.

Hebrews1:8-14 reads as below: “But of the Son he says,  "Yourthrone, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepterof your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; thereforeGod, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyondyour companions." (quoting Ps 45:6-7)

10 And,   "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earthin the beginning,  and the heavens are the work of your hands; theywill perish, but you remain;  they will all wear out like agarment, like a robe you will roll them up,  like a garment they will bechanged. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." (QuotingPs 102:25-27)

And to which of the angels has he ever said,   "Sit at myright hand  until I make your enemies a footstool for yourfeet"? (quoting Ps 110:1) Are they not all ministering spirits sentout to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?”

Inthis segment of Hebrews 1 we see three significant Messianic references. Thephrase ‘But of the Son he says’ clearlyindicates that the author of Hebrews isreferring to the Tanakh (to Scripture) and when we look for these threereferences we see the author is referring to verses from Psalms 45, 102& 110, which he argues declare the role of Yeshua as the Son of God andMessianic King.

Inquoting these verses, it is important to appreciate that the writer in typicalHebraic style is not just alluding to the verses quoted, though they carry themost significant information but to the immediate context of those verses (andin the case of Psalm 110 especially, most likely the whole Psalm). When theoriginals readers and listeners heard these quotes from a Psalm, they wouldhave been drawn to reflect on the whole Psalm (For example, you can see Yeshuaexpects his listeners to know the whole of Psalm 8 when he quotes only half ofPs 8:2 – see Matt 21:16.).

It isalso important to appreciate that in the first instance, none of these Psalmswere necessarily seen as Messianic but were written for a specific occasion.

Forexample, Psalm 45 was written in the first instance for the marriage of a Kingof Israel (most likely Jehu). It was only later added to and seen as aMessianic prophecy.

Beloware some excerpts from commentary on Ps 45 and Ps 102 from ‘A Critical AndExegetical Commentary On The Book Of Psalms’ By Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D.,D.Litt. Professor Of Theological Encyclopædia And Symbolics Union TheologicalSeminary, New York And Emilie Grace Briggs, B.D. (1906):

“Ps. 45 is a song celebrating the marriage of Jehu. The king is thefairest of men (v.3a. b). He is a warrior who rides forth in his chariotand pierces the heart of his enemies with his arrows (v.4–6). He embodies allprecious ointments in himself. He and his queen at his right hand are royallyarrayed (v.8c–10). She is urged to forget her people, and in her beauty besatisfied with her godlike lord and the homage of the people (v.11–13)… Glossesset forth the perpetuity of the throne of God and His sceptre of righteousness(v.7–8a), and wish the king a goodly posterity of kings (v.17–18a). …

Messianic significance was given to the Ps. because of v.7–8a, which,when applied to the king, ascribes to him godlike qualities, such as theMessiah alone was supposed to possess. But this gloss was later than thePs., and its Messianic interpretation later still.”

Similarlyfor Psalm 102. Quoting Briggs:

“Ps. 102 is composite: (A) A prayer of afflicted Israel, beseechingYahweh to answer in a day of distress (v.2–3); the peril is so great that he isabout to perish (v.4–6); he is desolate and reproached by enemies (v.7–9).It is his greatest grief that he has been cast off by his God (v.10–12). (B) expressesconfidence that the time has come when the everlasting King will havecompassion on Zion and build her up from her ruins, and that all nations willsee His glory and revere Him (v.13–18). The story will be toldto all generations of His interposition for the salvation of His people, thatHis praise may be forever celebrated in Jerusalem, where all nationswill eventually gather to serve Him (v.19–23. 29). Glosses reassert theseriousness of the situation (v.24–25a), and contrast theeverlasting creator with the perishable creature (25b–28)… Zionhas been destroyed by the enemy; her buildings are in ruins, mere stonesand dust; and yet these are precious to the servants of Yahweh, becausethey are the remains of the holy city of the divine presence and worship.(In verse 16 - the nations the kings of earth – we see) therestoration of Zion will have universal significance to the nations andespecially to their kings; and the result of it will be that they willrevere Thy name Thy glory], (and) take part in the worshipof the God of Israel… Two different glossators made insertions; theformer v.24–25a from Is. 38:10, the so-called song ofHezekiah: He hath brought down my strength in the way; Hehath shortened my days. I say: O my God, take me notaway in the midst of my days]. These two pentameter lines are more inaccord with the plaintive tone of the original Ps. than with the calmassurance of the later Maccabean Ps. in which it inserted. It was probablydesigned to assimilate them. The later glossator inserted the octastichv.25b–28, doubtless a fragment of a choice Ps. which has beenlost.”

Whenwe then consider the actual text quoted, which perhaps to the casual reader mayappear to attribute God-like qualities to the Son, we can be in no doubt thatthe verses in Hebrews are describing both the attributes of the Messiah andsome aspects of the coming Messianic Age.

Thus,the reference to the ‘foundation of the earth’ is not informing us that theMessiah somehow ‘pre-existed’ his birth and took the job of creation off theAlmighty, but that he is in a sense responsible for the new creation, the newUniverse where he is the ‘first fruits’; the new ‘Adam’.

Thusthe insertion of the word Lord (‘kurie’ in the LXX) in Ps 102:25 is anunnecessary addition and does not confer any preference or priority to the LXX.

Asfor Psalm 110:3, to argue here for the LXX over the Hebrew is clearly unwisefor two main reasons.

Firstly,as explained above, the Messianic context means that the distinction betweenthe two versions (as underlined below) is really insignificant.

Ps110:3 (LXX): “With thee is dominion in theday of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begottenthee from the womb before the morning.”

Tanakh (JPS): “Thy people offer themselves willingly in the day ofthy warfare; In adornments of holiness, from the womb of the dawn,Thine is the dew of thy youth.”

Whilethe LXX version above may seem to give more Messianic detail, the whole Psalm,in either reading is strongly Messianic regardless. So again, any preferencefor the LXX here is really superficial.

Thesecond reason is much more significant and that is the problem of the two Lordsin Ps 110:1. The Hebrew here, as you have pointed out on many occasions, clearlydistinguishes between the Almighty and His Lord, whereas the Greek does not(for example, Brenton’s translation of the LXX has ‘The Lord said to myLord, …’).

Thus,these two examples really do not confer any priority to the LXX over the Hebrew.

LXX Issue -Mark 15:34/Matt 27:46 and Eli/Eloi:

2011-09-22T14:03:00.000+10:00

Matthew 27:46 (KJV) “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with aloud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God,why hast thou forsaken me?”

Mark 15:34 (KJV) “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, myGod, why hast thou forsaken me?”

David Maas[1]also seems to think this quote is further evidence that the NT was originallywritten in Greek, yet this is a very troubling quote as ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ is neither an entirely Hebraic nor Aramaic phrase.

In fact, thewhole narrative of this phrase and the reported reaction of some of the Judeanbystanders is presented to us in such a fragmented and distorted manner as tobring into question the whole account. Rather than having any implied stamp ofauthority, a close investigation suggests that it is a Greek construction, atleast in part. That is, it may be a made up story, composed by Greek ratherthan Hebrew or Aramaic authors, and therefore another editorial ‘addition’ tothe original inspired writings.

The words ‘Eli’(meaning ‘my God’) and ‘lama’ (why) could be legitimate transliterations ofHebrew but the rest is questionable.

The Septuaginttranslation (from Hebrew) of Judges 5:5 indentifies ‘Eloi’ as a Hebrewtransliteration:

“The mountains wereshaken before the face of the Lord Eloi, this Sina before the face of the LordGod of Israel” (Judges 5:5’ THE SEPTUAGINT WITH APOCRYPHA: ENGLISH’ SIR LANCELOT C.L. - 1851).

This isintriguing as ‘Eloi’ is not a legitimate transliteration of Hebrew. Greek doesnot possess the letter H in its alphabet, but indicates the sound with adiacritical mark[2], which isusually at the beginning of a word. Hebrew does have the letter H though.

In Judges 5:5the term ‘Elohei’ is used toward the end of the verse in speaking of YHWH asthe God of Israel. Because there are no vowels indicated, the word appears as:Elohi. This cannot be properly transliterateddue to the absence of H in Greek, so the Greek form is given thus: eloi.

The literaltranslation of the verse, from Hebrew is, ‘The mountains quaked before YHWH, this Sinai, before YHWH Elohei ofIsrael. ‘ Note in the LXXtranslation by Lancelot that ‘Eloi’ is used.

Thus the term‘eloi’ in the LXX clearly stands for God - not ‘my God’ and yet it is used in Mark 15:34 as if it meant ‘my God’.

Returning to Matthew 27, Yeshua is believed to be quoting from Psalm 22:1here. The Hebrew text of the correspondingphrase in Psalms 22:1 reads (transliterated), ‘Eli, Eli, lamaazavtani’.

So while ‘Eli,Eli’ is correct as a transliteration of ‘my God, my God’ and ‘lama’ is correct forthe word ‘why’, the question is, does ‘sabachthani’ have thesame meaning as ‘azavtani’?

‘Sabachtani’ isnot a Hebrew (or Aramiac) word, but ‘shavaqta’ is (meaning ‘to abandon, todesert, to leave behind’). Itseems possible then that ‘sabachthani’ is merely a corruption of the word. In transliterations the Hebrew ‘s’ can become a ‘sh’ or theother way around and the ‘b’ often becomes a ‘v’.

As the closest Hebrew/Aramaic term to ‘sabachtani’ is ‘z^evahtani’, a conjugated verbthat derives from the root verb ‘zavah’, meaning [to]sacrifice/slaughter [a sacrificial animal], another possibility is that thisword was intended. As this word is never used in the Hebrew Bible, it wouldseem unlikely. Also it would render this phrase as "My God, My God, whyhave you slaughtered me?", which seems most improbable.

The Targum Yonathan, an ancient interpretive translation (around800 CE) of the Hebrew Bible into the Aramaic vernacular, has ‘Eli,Eli, m^etul mah sh^evaqtani’ (essentially thesame as Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible). The phrase ‘m^etul mah’ is interchangeable withthe word ‘lama’. The conjugated verb ‘sh^evaqtani’ derives from theAramaic root verb ‘sh^evaq’, [to]leave/forsake.

As mentioned above, It also seems possible then that the Aramaic ‘sh^evaqtani’ could have become ‘sabachtani’in the process of transliteration. That is, the Greek comes to us via a Aramaictranslation of a Hebrew original.

Of course, it is challenging toconsider that Yeshua was quoting Psalm 22:1, as given his constant communionwith his ‘Father and our Father’[3],we may not expect him to feel forsaken. On the other hand, King David wrotethese words in the Psalm and he too had a very close relationship with theAlmighty. In fact, King David is recalling here in Ps 22 that his God hadlistened and intervened on behalf of his ancestors and so, when feelingabandoned for a time, he cries out in pain.

A few years ago there was a shockingterrorist attack at a Yeshiva (House of Torah Study) in Jerusalem where someboys were murdered as they studied the Tanakh. The head of the Yeshiva wasquoted at the memorial service for the victims also calling out Ps 22:1.

Even the strongest and most devotedand faithful of men can feel abandoned by their Father at the darkest momentsof their lives. Thus, I find it believable that even Yeshua could have quotedthese words.

Also problematic is the next verse: “And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, This man iscalling Elijah.”

In Hebrew, Elijah’s name whentransliterated becomes Eliyahu. The shortened form is Eli. This is not the casefor Aramaic or Greek. So this would seem to suggest that the phrase was inHebrew. Given Yeshua’s Galileandialect and his being in great pain and anguish, his words may not have beenvery clear to the Judeans listening, and this may explain how they may havemisunderstood what he was saying. A bigger question, that still makes thisverse problematic though is: ‘Why would he say, ‘Elijah, why have you forsakenme’?

So it appears we have considerableconfusion and possibly editorial “enhancement’s”,and Greek constructions, etc. How does this confusion relate to the question ofa Greek or Hebrew original?

I would suggest that if the originalbooks of Mark and Matthew were in Hebrew, and the translators were not expertsin Hebrew and perhaps were even translating from Aramaic versions, then wemight expect such a confused state of affairs to exist.

So again, this passage offers nosupport for a LXX original and worse it is another passage which suggests somedeliberate distortions and editorial reconstructions have occurred.

[1] The “Hebraic Roots”Regression to Moses: The Peril of Rewriting Scripture’ by David Maas in the August 2011 edition of‘Focus on the Kingdom’ – at http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/magazine.htm

[2] A mark that is placed on a letter to indicatethat it has a different pronunciation than it would otherwise, or to indicatethat the word has a different meaning than it would otherwise.

[3] John 20:17

LXX Part 5: the Doctrinal Implications?

2011-09-18T16:47:00.003+10:00

Part 5 – the Doctrinal Implications:

Ihave tried to present the case here for the New Testament to primarily, if nottotally, have Hebrew as its original language of composition. I have not in anyway been exhaustive and dealt with every single book of the NT, although Ibelieve the arguments presented here, though primarily focussing on theSynoptic Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, can fairly be applied to all of theNT.

Addedto this, I have tried to highlight some of the many very serious issuesregarding deliberate distortions of the original text. For example, I recommend you reconsiderRomans 3:10-18. What doctrine is being falsely promoted here? If this doctrineis not true, what is? What understanding does the Tanakh instead promote? Ileave this issue to your prayerful study and reflection.

Inintroducing the implications of these arguments I had earlier in this article spoken of some uniquelyChristian doctrines; such as, doctrines of atonement and doctrines ofexclusiveness.

Someof these doctrines, including ‘Replacement Theology’ seek, even if notintentionally, to separate the Church from its Jewish/Hebraic heritage. Oftencoupled with them are doctrines that argue for the abolition of the Torah andfor a reduced role for repentance in the process of salvation.

Ratherthan go into any detail on these doctrines that may need revisiting, I wish tomake just a couple of points and leave the rest to the believers own personaljourney of seeking and discovering truth.

Firstly, a very valid and fundamentalquestion is, what can we believe and what remains when we remove thedistortions that can be identified?

My answer is a great deal! Firstly,the bedrock of our faith is surely to have the ‘faith of Yeshua’[1],which was the faith of Abraham, and that is faith in the God of Israel who isso clearly introduced to us through the Tanakh. Nothing written here in anywayreduces the centrality, the foundation that is the Scriptures that Yeshua andPaul loved and knew.

Secondly, there is very little inthe way of questions or controversy over the words of Yeshua. Mostsignificantly, Yeshua when asked what was required to inherit the Kingdom,answered ‘obey the commandments’. He also said that his brothers and sisterswere those who ‘do the will of the Father’. Both John the Baptist and Yeshuasaid ‘Repent, for the Kingdom is at hand’.

Thus, repentance and obedience seemto be central to faithfulness. That is, if we are to put our trust in theAlmighty as Yeshua and Abraham did, then we are called to turn back to Him andto live life’s of obedience and submission to Him.

To conclude, below is a paraphraseof a quote from my article ‘The Resurrection and Jewish Skepticism’:

The use of the Septuagint, combinedwith the distortions that it’s use appears to have facilitated “ .. has led to an almost maniacal andunbelievable degree of anti-Semitism in the world and especially within manycircles inside Christianity (the religion that purports to follow a JewishMessiah).

Further, this anti-Semitism lead mainstreamChristianity to loose itself from its Hebraic roots …

The Hellenistic adoption and overthrow of Christianityhas also led to a great many other beliefs that contradict the TaNaK such asthe immortality of the soul. …

While the very poor witness of Christendom may not bewell known to the world at large, to the Jewish world which knows its HebrewBible, the TaNaK, and knows it in the original Hebrew language, the witnessthey see is not good.

They see a Christian world which has in many waysdistorted ‘their’ scriptures as it has mistranslated them or mis-used them inthe New Testament and associated writings.

They see a witness which has much ‘bad fruit’ and soquite correctly and perhaps justifiably, reply to Christendom to look in themirror as they quote Matthew 7:16-20, as well as Luke 13:6-9 and then John15:2-16.

A most significant portion of John 15 is verse 10: “If you keep my commandments, you willabide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in hislove.”

From a Biblical and Jewish perspective, Christianityhas little idea of what Jesus meant here, or of how to live this truth 24/7.”

The Creator and King of the Universe[2]has revealed Himself through nature and through the Holy Bible. The HebrewScriptures are the lowest common denominator for both Judaism and Christianity,and the most fundamental and foundational written revelation of the Almighty tothe world.

When the incredible and unique revelationof the resurrection of Yeshua, is added to this foundation, and properlyunderstood and integrated, the result is a much more holistic and balancedworldview than most could possibly imagine.

The great and awesome Day of YHWHapproaches. The incredible revelation of Isaiah 49 beckons![3]It is time to get our house in order; to be united in purpose and truth withour Jewish brothers so that we can speak the love and comfort of HaShem intothis lost and hurting world.

[1]See my article ‘TheFaith of Jesus’ at http://www.circumcisedheart.info

[2] ‘Baruchatah Adonai Eloheinu melekh ha‑olam’ – Blessedare you, LORD our God, King of the Universe!

[3] See Isaiah 49 – a commentary’at circumcisedheart.info

Biblical Theology & Luke 4:43

Israel and the Church - a 3 part harmony?

“*WE* are the circumcision ..” (Phil 3:3)

Re-evaluating Philippians 3

Some thoughts on 1 Thess 2:14-16:

Israel of God (Gal 6:16):

The ‘old wine is better’ – revisiting the ‘Wineskins’ parable:

Who is Jesus?

Rabbi, what must I do to inherit eternal life?

John's prologue in its Jewish context

Further on the LXX and Hebrews 10:5

Addressing questions - More on the LXX

The Greek NT & the LXX - Heb 1:10?

LXX Issue -Mark 15:34/Matt 27:46 and Eli/Eloi:

LXX Part 5: the Doctrinal Implications?

“WE are the circumcision ..” (Phil 3:3)