Roy B. Blizzard's Blog, page 8

Spend the day with Dr. Roy Blizzard

Dear Friends,

We would like to extend a special invitation to you to take advantage of a new and unique educational opportunity to spend the day with Dr. Roy Blizzard at his home office located near Austin, Texas.

Recently, one of our friends called to inquire about the chance of being able to spend a day with Dr. Blizzard to study and have his questions answered. He was so inspired by the prospect that he added he would be happy to make a $1000 contribution to Bible Scholars for the privilege of having Dr. Blizzard all to himself for a day.

Others have made similar requests in the past, but it was never possible due to time and scheduling constraints. Now, because Dr. Blizzard has a three-month break in his schedule with no conferences or speaking engagements planned, he has agreed to be available to you and a companion for a day of your choosing for a contribution of $1,000 to Bible Scholars.

Dr. Blizzard has scholarly expertise in many fields including Hebrew, Bible studies, archaeology, anthropology, and human sexuality. If this opportunity is exciting and of interest to you and you wish to schedule a date in the next three months, contact us or leave a message at (512) 267-3289. Dr. Blizzard will connect with you personally to discuss your major areas of interest. If you will be traveling to Austin, we will be happy to arrange accommodations at a hotel that is only a short distance away. We look forward to hearing from you.

Best Wishes and God Bless

March 2, 2015

Two friends and I were recently afforded the unique opportunity of being invited to spend “one on one” time with Dr. Roy Blizzard. It was a very inviting and family type atmosphere, one that I would imagine would have been likened to what the disciples must have felt while sitting at the feet of Yeshua. We were encouraged to ask any questions and were in turn enlightened by Dr. Blizzard’s additional comments and perspective.

I would encourage anyone seeking a living historical viewpoint about the Biblical Text, enriched by years of study and archaeological digs, to take the opportunity to reserve your spot to "sit at the feet of Dr. Roy Blizzard."

Sincerely,

David Driggers

Get "The Quest: In Search of the Historical Jesus" – 12 30-minute programs on four DVD's

Bible Scholars and the American Institute for Advanced Biblical Studies are excited to announce some dynamic changes in both organizations! Coming next year you can look for the rollout of an expanded and more user-friendly website along with new educational materials and seminars. In addition, AIFABS will be increasing its faculty plus offering on-line courses accessible via the internet as well as in the classroom. This will be a treasure trove of knowledge for everyone seeking the truth and devoted to advanced Biblical studies.

To help us launch this exciting new venture, Dr. Roy Blizzard has compiled a one-of-a-kind anthology of the greatest interviews from his television program "The Quest: In Search of the Historical Jesus." This twelve-part series features the world's finest scholars and was shot in studio and on location in Israel.

"The Quest" is thought provoking and timely. Never before and never again will these minds (the first to advocate Hebrew as the language of Jesus) be gathered in one spot to share their scholarship and beliefs with all of us. Guided on this journey of discovery by Dr. Blizzard, you can hear directly from the scholars who have truly changed forever the way we think about Jesus and the language of the average individual of Judea in his day.

Can you imagine where you could ever have the opportunity to see and hear these outstanding scholars – Dr. Robert Lindsey, Dr. Yehoshua Gafni, Dr. Amihai Mazar and Professors Benjamin Mazar, Magen Broshi and David Flusser? A truly unique opportunity to see and hear outstanding scholarship on subjects of vital importance to your understanding of the life and works of Jesus. Many of you have heard of these scholars in the past but have never had the chance to actually see or hear them.

The original tapes of the entire "Quest" series have been converted into DVD format and are available today for a one-time tax-deductible offering of $995. If you prefer, your offering can be paid out over the next three months in $400, $300 and $295 increments. If you act now, you will also have the opportunity to earn three hours of college credit from AIFABS as well. Think of it, 12 30-minute programs on four DVDs and three college credits for a tax-deductible contribution of $995.

Production costs alone were in the tens-of-thousands of dollars and, considering that several of the interview guests have since passed on, these conversations can never be duplicated again.

Order today! You'll be taking a big step toward increasing your personal knowledge of the Bible and Jesus and you'll have the added assurance that you've been a real blessing to others through the good works of Bible Scholars and the American Institute.

To order, call 1-800-617-6205. Checks should be made out to AIFABS and mailed to the following address:

American Institute for Advanced Biblical Studies
47 Cliffwood Circle
North Little Rock, AR 72118

If you have any questions, please feel free to phone us at 1-800-617-6205.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ron Moseley and Dr. Roy Blizzard

The Nature of Law, Part I

The subject of law is probably one of the most misunderstood in Christendom. For most Christians, law conjures up all kinds of negative mental images. Law is viewed as something harsh, bad, transient, and superseded by something better; namely, grace. Passages such as John 1:16-17 seem to indicate this, "And of His fullness, we all have received, and grace upon grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came from Jesus, the Messiah."

By Roy B. Blizzard

The subject of law is probably one of the most misunderstood in Christendom. For most Christians, law conjures up all kinds of negative mental images. Law is viewed as something harsh, bad, transient, and superseded by something better; namely, grace. Passages such as John 1:16-17 seem to indicate this, "And of His fullness, we all have received, and grace upon grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came from Jesus, the Messiah."

Such thinking does a grave injustice to God’s revelation of Himself to mankind. The English word law is used to translate the Hebrew word, Torah. Torah is the feminine noun from the root yarah. The root, YRH, means to throw, or to shoot, or to cast, as in the casting of lots, or the shooting of arrows. It means to point out, to show. It means to direct, to teach, to instruct.

A moreh, is a teacher, or one who throws out, or points out, one who directs, instructs. Torah, is direction, or instruction. It sets forth the way man is to live. It instructs man as to how he is to live in an ethical and moral way among his fellow man and before God.

Although law is a commonly used translation of the Hebrew, Torah, it gives a mistaken impression as to what Torah is. This misunderstanding derives from the Greek translation of Torah as nomos, and later into Latin as lex. However, nomos means anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, law. It is used frequently in the Septuagint to translate not only Torah, but also chukah, and dat. Chukah, although frequently used interchangeably with Torah, is closer to nomos in meaning than is Torah.

The underlying idea of Torah is that of teaching, instruction. Torah is God instructing His people that they may know how to live in a moral and ethical world in a way pleasing unto Him and at peace with their fellow man.

The idea of law in Hebrew is not something that, if transgressed, is going to get you "zapped." Torah is instruction that, if followed, will enrich one’s life; if ignored, will diminish it. Law is frequently viewed as that which God has commanded, as the commandments, or the Ten Commandments.

The Hebrew word translated as commandment is mitzvah, from the root tzavah. It means to lay charge upon, or to give charge to. A mitzvah is a charge, or a commandment. Commandments, when performed, designate the individual as moral and ethical. Moral and ethical acts, when performed, set the individual apart from the irresponsible, the unethical, the immoral. Acts, when performed, benefit both the performer and the recipient – acts that please God.

I think we can safely say that all law given by God was for the purpose of instructing man as to how he was to live here in this world. To that end, the Hebrews developed a very sophisticated legal system, courts of laws, and courts of justice.

The earliest court of law recorded in the Bible was that instituted by Moses on the advice of his father-in-law, Jethro. Moses delegated the judicial power to appointed chiefs of one thousands, one hundreds, fifties, and tens (Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:15). He retained jurisdiction in the most difficult disputes (Exodus 18:22-26; Deuteronomy 1:17).

It appears that, in the time of Moses, judicature preceded law, which only originated as a result of judicial precedent on legal rulings. As the Israelites settled in the land, judges were to be appointed in every town. In towns with less than 120 inhabitants, there was a court of only three judges. In towns of 120 or more, a court known as the Small Sanhedrin, Sanhedrin Ketanah, consisting of 23 judges, was to be established. The highest court was the Sanhedria or the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of 71 judges. The Great Sanhedrin sat in the Temple in Jerusalem and had unlimited legislative, administrative, and judicial powers.

Certain crimes were reserved for jurisdiction by the Great Sanhedrin and could be judged by it alone. The uttering of a false prophecy, or the teaching by an elder, zaken, of rebellion and subversion, were crimes so heinous they could be judged only by the Great Sanhedrin. In certain cases where capital punishment was meted out, the death penalty had to be confirmed by the Great Sanhedrin before it could be carried out. The rebellious son, one who enticed another to idolatry, and one who gave false witness in a court of law are examples.

Certain administrative functions, such as the appointment of courts of 23, the election of kings and high priests, declarations of war, or the offering of certain sacrifices, could only be done by the Great Sanhedrin.

Legislatively, the Great Sanhedrin was the essential source of all oral law. Law set forth by the Great Sanhedrin was binding on everybody, and anyone who attempted to repudiate it was subject to the death penalty.

In addition to these regular courts, there was a special court of priests that sat in the Temple who supervised the functions of ritual and ceremony and, by the Talmudic Period, it appears that, at times, just a single judge could judge in civil cases.

In order to be appointed as a judge, one had to meet certain qualifications. The seven fundamental qualifications a judge must possess were wisdom, humility, fear of God, disdain of money, love of truth, love of people, and a good reputation. He must have a good eye (generous), a humble soul, must be pleasant in company, speak kindly, be strict with himself, conquer lustful impulses, have a courageous heart to save the oppressed from hate, cruelty and persecution, and shun wrong and injustice.

Maimonides, also known as Rambam, stated that judges must be wise and sensible, learned in the law, full of knowledge and acquainted with subjects such as medicine, mathematics, astronomy, as well as astrology and the ways of sorcerers and magicians and the absurdities of such matters so as to know how to judge them. The judge must not be too old, nor a eunuch. He may not be childless and must be free from bodily defects. He should have an imposing appearance and be fluent in many languages.

While sitting in judgment, a judge must be patient, hearing both sides of the case with impartiality. He must judge deliberately and with care, and not delay justice. His judgment must be without undue pressure or influence through either words or threat or bribery. Additionally, before sitting in judgment, the judge must be sure that any other judges sitting with him in judgment were properly qualified and not sit together with another judge he hates or despises.

Although the rabbis ascribed the origin of the bet din (literally: house judgment) to biblical characters such as Moses, Gideon, Samuel, David, and Solomon, the bet din belongs principally to the Second Temple Period. According to Baba Kamma 82a, the establishment of the bet din is attributed to Ezra. According to tradition, he decreed that the bet din was to convene on Mondays and Thursdays in all populated centers.

During the Second Temple Period, Judaism boasted a very highly developed legal system with its courts and laws. In the Mishnah, Order Nezikin, there is a chapter Sanhedrin, that deals with courts, laws, and punishment for those condemned for a capital crime. The chapter, or tractate, is not only interesting but important for the understanding of the whole subject of law, as well as crime, trial, and punishment, as it probably was in the first century of the Common Era.

We are told, for example, that the Great Sanhedrin met in a place called the Hall of Hewn-Stone, in Hebrew the Lishkat Hagazit, situated in the southeast corner of the Inner Court of the Temple. The president, nasi, and the vice president, who is called av bet din, sat next to one another, and the remaining 69 sat in a semi-circle facing them.

The tractate, Sanhedrin, is an interesting tractate divided into 11 chapters. The reading of the tractate gives us an indication of the level of sophistication of the legal system in the first century. Cases judged before a court of three, those judged before a court of 23, or those judged by the 71 are set forth in Chapter 1.

Chapters six and seven deal with the various means or methods of dealing with one condemned for a capital crime. According to Chapter seven, Mishnah 1, four kinds of death penalty were vested in the court: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling. The descending order of severity was burning, stoning, strangling, and beheading.

The one to be burned was buried in manure up to the armpits. A rope was then wound around the neck with one witness on one end and the other witness on the other end, and the rope was then pulled until the condemned opened his mouth; then, a ladle of molten lead was poured down the throat.

The person to be stoned was taken to the place of stoning and one of the witnesses pulled him into a pit six cubits high. If he died from the fall, that was sufficient. If not, the second witness dropped a large stone on his heart. If that did not suffice, then his stoning had to be carried out by the people of Israel. Those that were stoned were then hung from a post protruding from the ground. The hands were tied together and the body was suspended from the post which was then leaned against a wall. The body must be buried before sunset, and the stone and the gallows were buried with the corpse.

Those to be beheaded had their heads cut off with a sword or an ax. The one to be strangled was put in manure up to his armpits with the rope wrapped around the neck, one witness on one side, the other witness on the other and the rope pulled by the witnesses until the condemned was dead.

In each case, the crimes are set forth for each method of capital punishment. For example, the blasphemer, the idolater, the soothsayer, the rebellious and disobedient son, the son who cursed his father or his mother, the one who profaned the Sabbath, or the one who led others into idolatry, were all to be stoned.

Those to be burned were largely guilty of sexual sins. The murderer and the people of an apostate city were to be beheaded. Of course, there were transgressions that did not merit capital punishment but for which punishment was due. In such cases, scourging was the punishment rendered, the meting out of stripes up to a maximum number of forty, depending upon the transgression. Another tractate in Order Nezikin relates to the meting out of such punishment. The tractate is called Makkot, which means blows.

There are 59 offenses listed in Chapter Three that merit punishment by flagellation. According to Rabbi Judah, the transgressor receives 13 stripes on the body, 13 across one shoulder, and 13 across the other shoulder. The additional stripe, the 40th one, was to be administered between the shoulders.

Makkot 3:12-13 reads, "In what manner do they scourge him? They tie his two hands to a post on either side, and the Hazzan of the synagogue takes hold of his garments at the neck and lays bare his body. If the garments are torn, they are torn. If the seams are torn, they are torn, so that the chest is exposed. A stone is placed behind him on which the Hazzan of the synagogue stands and a strap of calf-hide is in his hand, first folded into two and the two folded into four, and attached thereto are two strips of ass-hide which rises and falls. Its hand-piece is a hand-breadth in length, and its width is one hand-breadth, and its end must reach up to his navel, and he lays one-third of the lashes in front of him on the chest and two-thirds behind him, and he must not scourge him when the victim is standing or sitting but only when he is bending over as it is said that the judge shall cause him to lie down [Deuteronomy 25:2], and he who smites must smite with his one hand and with all his might."

When one considers the subject of law, one must differentiate between the various kinds of law. In our discussion of courts, crime and punishment, we have been dealing with only one aspect of law, the civil. However, one must also note the moral aspect of law, that is, the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial aspect of law with its feasts, festivals, ritual, and so forth.

The moral aspect of the law, the Ten Commandments, is without doubt the best-known of the various aspects of law. It has been frequently stated by Christians that the Ten Commandments serve as the foundation upon which all law of the Western world is based.

Such, however, is not really the case. The Ten Commandments, as we see them presented in Exodus, Chapter 20, were given by God to Moses and the Hebrew peoples. The Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 were, in a unique way, for the Hebrew peoples. There had been early law codes, much older than the time of Moses, containing laws similar to those found in both the Ten Commandments and, later, in Jewish civil law.

Many are acquainted with, or have at least heard of, the law code of Hammurabi, circa 1792-1750 B.C.E. His famous law code was discovered in 1901-2 at Susa, one-time capital of the Elamites. It is in the form of a boundary stone and stands about eight feet high. This law code was written in Akkadian and touches on many matters which are dealt with in the legal portions of the Torah.

An early law code, predating that of Hammurabi by at least one hundred years, was from the town of Eshunna and of the king, Lipit Ishtar. Other documents give us insight into the laws and customs of peoples from the time of the patriarchs down to the fifteenth century B.C.E.

The most dramatic of these written records are those from the ancient Hurrian town of Nuzi. Some twenty thousand documents were found in the excavations reflecting very close parallels between the laws and customs of Nuzi and those found in the Torah. That the Ten Commandments, or the moral aspect of Torah, were exclusively Hebrew can be demonstrated from the injunctions to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Although we can find parallels for other customs and laws in extra-biblical sources, we can find no parallel for the fourth Commandment.

A law code less familiar to non-Jews is more universal in scope and extends to all mankind. It is the law code of the Hebrews but not for the Hebrews. To Gentiles who were not prepared to become Hebrews, or Jews, a law code known as the Seven Laws of Noah applied. Those, traditionally enumerated, are prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, sexual sins, theft, cruelty to animals, and the injunction to establish a legal system. They are derived exegetically from Torah, specifically, commandments God gave to Adam and, later on, to Noah. By righteous conduct based upon these fundamental laws, they would earn divine approval. With the Seven Laws of Noah, we can see God’s grace extended far beyond the Hebrew peoples to all mankind.

The ceremonial aspect of law dealt with feasts, festivals, holy days, and religious observances. The cycle of the Jewish year centered around these special days. Unlike Christianity that compartmentalizes life into the secular and the sacred, in Judaism, there is no such compartmentalization. All of life is sacred.

The cycle of the Jewish year, with its feasts, festivals, and sacred days, was designed to make the people God conscious, their daily life and activity God-centered. Injunctions concerning these observances assumed the form of Torah, Torah as instruction.

It is difficult for the average Christian to project themselves back some two thousand years in history into a cultural condition and mentality totally foreign to that of the Western world today. That is exactly, however, what we must do to gain proper perspective on the law.

First, we must understand that the context is Jewish. The language is Hebrew. Jesus and Paul were both Jewish, and their perspective on law is deeply rooted in the Judaism of their day. According to Jewish thought in their day, there were two Torahs, the written and the oral. The written was, of course, the five books of Moses. The oral consisted of those traditions given to Moses at Sinai and handed down, or communicated orally, from one generation to the next.

Torah, therefore, is all-encompassing. It encompasses daily life, the totality of what a person is in his relationship both to God and his fellow man. The purpose of Torah is to instruct man in his relationships. The teachings of Jesus are full of grace when one interprets His teachings from the proper Hebrew perspective, as Dr. Brad Young has correctly pointed out in his excellent book, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (Paulist Press, 1989).

Jesus emphasizes grace in His teachings as much as Paul. Our problem in understanding the words of Paul and Jesus on the subject of law is our failure to consider their audiences. Jesus’ audience is almost entirely Jewish. His words are directed to those of the household of Israel. Paul, on the other hand, addresses a non-Jewish, or gentile, audience.

The English word, law, is a very poor translation of the Greek word, nomos, used by Paul in his epistles. The meaning and scope of nomos is far greater than our English concept of law. Paul is Jewish, a "Hebrew of the Hebrews." When he says "law," he is thinking Torah. Torah is Paul’s way of life. Torah is what Paul is. Torah had molded him from the beginning and made him what he was.

In Romans 7:12, Paul declares, "The law is holy and the commandment is holy and just and good." Paul viewed God with a Hebrew mind. The Greek mind had to reason everything out. The Greek mind was idealistic. They saw the world as it was, then tried to fashion it into what they thought it ought to be.

The Hebrew mind was realistic. Theirs was a God not thought out. They simply took Him for what He was and neither tried to explain nor understand. For them, much was a mystery, but that posed no problems. Questions could remain unanswered, things unknown. Only one thing they needed to know – God is and He is one. So great, so wonderful, so powerful, so all-encompassing is He that one is left in wonder and awe.

Torah assists one in understanding something of the nature of God and His love for His people. Torah is a magnificent demonstration of God’s grace. Jesus, in speaking to the household of Israel, declares, "I did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it." (Matthew 5:17)

How does one destroy the law? By misinterpreting it. How does one fulfill the law? By correctly interpreting it. From the Hebrew, the passage would be translated, "Think not that I am come to misinterpret, or to misapply, the law. Rather, I have come to correctly interpret and, thereby, cause the law to stand upright on a firm foundation."

According to that law that Jesus came to correctly interpret, non-Jews would have their part in the world to come through the observance of the Seven Laws of Noah. In some sources, these are reduced to four, i.e., "pollutions of idols, fornication, things strangled, and from blood" (Acts 15:20, at the Jerusalem Council), or as few as three-idolatry, murder, and sexual impurity.

According to Paul, Jesus opened the flood gates of the kingdom to non-Jews that they might gain access to a greater understanding of, and a deeper relationship with, God, as well as entering into a right relationship with their fellow man. That was accomplished through God’s grace. Man did not deserve it. Man could not earn it. God, in His unmerited favor bestowed the gift upon mankind, a gift that was appropriated by faith.

Here again, we must be careful in that the biblical meaning of faith is not belief but faithfulness. For Paul, the Hebrew, the Jew, he would be faithful to the law of Moses, and that he was; but, that law was not a legal system. Torah was all-encompassing, full of God’s mercy and grace. But – that law of Moses, so rich, so spiritual, so full of meaning for those of the household of Israel, had little meaning for those who lacked the two thousand years of moral and spiritual tradition the Hebrews enjoyed. Their access to the kingdom was dependent entirely upon God’s grace.

In Romans 5, 6, and 7, Paul speaks eloquently of God’s grace, "Where sin abounded, grace would much more abound. What shall I say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid (Romans 6:1-2). Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid (Romans 6:15). Is the law sin? God forbid (Romans 7:7). Wherefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good (Romans 7:12). The law is spiritual (Romans 7:14). I delight in the law of God." (Romans 7:22)

The problem with law is not that it is not good, or spiritual, or holy. The problem is that we have problems with keeping it. The law is not weak; the law is not imperfect. We are weak. We are imperfect. But, thanks be to God, we are declared to be righteous – in a right relationship with God, based not upon what we are but upon what He is.

Paul says in Romans 3 that the righteousness of God is by the faith of Jesus unto all and upon all that believe. Galatians 2:16, "knowing that a man is not justified," that is, declared to be righteous, "by the works of the law, but by the faith OF Jesus," not faith IN Jesus.

Many translations have incorrectly translated the Greek genitive. Translated IN, this passage makes no sense whatever. When correctly translated, we have a marvelous declaration of Paul’s theology regarding the Gentiles’ justification as Paul continues, "…even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith OF Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Although the law is spiritual, the law is holy, righteousness does not come by the law. Righteousness comes through faithfulness. Faithfulness justifies righteousness. Righteousness justifies reward. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult for both the Christian and the Jew to understand Paul because of what others have said about him, just as it has been difficult for Christians to understand the law because of what theologians have said about it. Many Jewish theologians write negatively about Paul and his teachings based not upon careful examination of Paul but, rather, based upon what some Christian theologian said about Paul.

Marcion, the heretic, circa. 144 C.E., had a negative impact on Christians and Christianity relative to the law and Judaism that remains until this day. Marcion was a rabid anti-Semite. He hated Judaism and the Jews. He believed that not only the law but the whole Old Testament was bad, had passed away, and had been superseded by the New. Marcion loved Paul because he misunderstood Paul’s position on the law and grace. Marcion believed that Paul rejected the law and emphasized grace.

Martin Luther also had a negative impact on Christian theology by misunderstanding Paul and developing the theology of justification by faith. According to Luther, faith negated Torah. Law was bad, imperfect, and transient. Judaism, as a religious system, was bad, and all Jews would burn in Hell unless they accepted Jesus as their personal savior. Luther was as rabid an anti-Semite as was Marcion, and his anti-Semitism is clearly reflected in his theology.

Unfortunately, the influence of Marcion, Luther, and others of their ilk and kin remain with us until today; but, they were wrong! They misunderstood. They did not understand Jesus’ view of Torah. They did not understand that Jesus saw the Torah as good, as holy, as God’s revelation of Himself to mankind. They failed to understand that Jesus’ purpose in coming was not to destroy, cancel, or annul the law, but to correctly interpret it and, thusly, cause it to stand upright.

Paul says essentially the same thing, as previously mentioned. Paul’s message sets forth the true meaning and purpose of Torah, the divine plan of God for man. It was the purpose of both Jesus and Paul to correctly interpret Torah. It was the focus of their teaching, the heart and center of their lives.

Jesus’ purpose was to establish God’s Torah among the Jews. Paul’s purpose was to extend forth God’s Torah to embrace the non-Jews. For both Jesus and Paul, Torah was grace.

To be continued in part II…

The Nature of Law, Part II

In part I of The Nature of Law, I stated that there was no Greek word that could adequately convey the meaning inherent in the Hebrew word Torah, translated into English as "law."

By Roy B. Blizzard

In part I of The Nature of Law, I stated that there was no Greek word that could adequately convey the meaning inherent in the Hebrew word Torah, translated into English as "law."

The English word "law" is closely related to the Greek word nomos, used to translate Torah, but falls woefully short of conveying the meaning of the Hebrew word Torah.

It is a problem not just confined to the subject of law. Many biblical concepts have been misunderstood because the translation is incapable of conveying the meaning of the Hebrew original. I am reminded of a statement made by Charles Augustus Briggs in his book, Biblical Study, published in 1883: "…no translation can ever take the place of the original Scripture; for a translation is, at the best, the work of uninspired men who, though holy and faithful, and guided by the Spirit of God, are yet unable to do more than give us their own interpretation of the sacred oracles…. A mere external, grammatical, and lexigraphical translation is worthless. Unless the spirit of the original has been not only apprehended, but conveyed, it is no real translation."

Professor Briggs continues:

How important it is, therefore, if the church is to maintain a living connection with the sacred Scriptures, and enter ever deeper into their spirit and mysterious life, that it should encourage a considerable portion of its youth to pursue these studies, and at all events insist that its ministry, who are to train it in the things of God, should have not merely a superficial knowledge of the Bible, such as any layman may readily attain, but a deep and thorough acquaintance with the original perennial fountains of truth; otherwise, as history has already sufficiently shown, these uninspired versions will assume the place of the original inspired Word; and the interpretations of a particular generation will become the stereotyped dogmas of many generations, and the life of a Christian people will be cut off from its only source of spiritual growth, and a barren scholasticism, with its stereotyped dogmas, mechanical institutions, and opera operata, will assume the place and importance of the divine word and living communion with God.

The languages of the Bible being the only adequate means of conveying and perpetuating the divine revelation, it is important that we should learn them not merely from the outside, with grammar and lexicon, but also from the inside, from a proper conception of the genius and life of these tongues as employed by the ancient saints, and especially of the historical genius of the languages as the sacred channels of the Spirit’s thought and life.

Over one hundred years ago, Professor Briggs (the Briggs of Brown Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon) realized the importance of a thorough knowledge of the original languages for correct biblical understanding. I would like to demonstrate once again the importance of a knowledge of the original languages, as well as to continue our discussion on the subject of law, by analyzing from the Hebrew the moral aspect of law, i.e., the decalogue, or the Ten Commandments. Although not unlike other law codes, it must be emphasized again that, in the form in which it appears in the biblical text, it is a law code to, and for, the Hebrew peoples.

That we can know of a certainty that this is a true statement is indicated by the fourth commandment, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8) We will discuss that particular commandment in a moment, but let us look at each one of them in their biblical order.

The first of the ten commandments is translated in English, "You shall have no other gods before me." Translated literally from the Hebrew, it would read something like, "There will not be to you other gods above my face." This commandment establishes the foundation principle of biblical faith, i.e., monotheism, which acknowledges that it is possible for people to worship other gods, yet fails to acknowledge these "gods" as either co-equal or real, as will be established in the next commandment.

Before we continue, I would like to note what is a common misnomer and misunderstanding. Nowhere in the Hebrew text is the word "commandment" used in reference to these injunctions. In chapter 20, verse 1, "God spoke these things, or words, saying…" Here, again, we know that the Greek word nomos, or the English word law, or "commandment," do not adequately translate these sayings.

Again, this is Torah, instruction. God is teaching His people how He wants them to live, before Him and his fellow man. In verse 4, the English continues, "You shall not make unto yourself a graven image nor any manner of likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down unto them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of generations of them that love me and keep my commandments."

Here the word mitzvah, is used, but in a general sense, relating not just to the Hebrew peoples, nor just to the Ten Commandments, but to all those that love Him and observe, or regard, all his commandments. The Hebrew verb pasal, means to hew and to shape. Therefore, a pesel, is something that has been hewn into the form, shape, or likeness of a man or an animal, and used as an idol, or image for worship. Also included was a likeness, or representation, (Hebrew, temunah, the feminine noun meaning form, likeness, from the Hebrew root, min) of any heavenly body, any earthly object, anything beneath the waters of the earth that could possibly be used as an object of worship. The instruction is explicit, "You shall not bow down to them nor shall you worship them."

Of late, many people have indicated a concern about all different kinds of curio objects, pictures, etc., and some have gone so far as to say that nothing of this sort should be in one’s home, that all such objects open one’s home to demons and satanic activity. Some have gone so far as to take down all pictures from their walls and to forbid their children to play with dolls. Notice, however, that the injunction is specific in that you shall not make these things in order to bow down unto them, or worship, or serve them as a god.

The third injunction reads in English, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." From this injunction, people have gotten the mistaken idea that it is a sin to cuss, to use profanity, or vulgarity. Because the Hebrew language is considered to be the holy language, it really does not contain the kinds of words we would classify, in other languages, as profanity or vulgarity. I suppose there are words that by some stretch of the imagination could be used in a manner considered to be vulgar, but that conception of vulgarity would be assumed by non-native speakers of the language, or those not acquainted with proper usage.

It has been stated currently that profanity is nothing more than the verbal attempt on the part of the uneducated mind to express oneself forcefully. The implication in this injunction is much deeper than what we think of as profanity. The Hebrew verb, nasa, means to lift, to carry, to take, specifically to lift up, or to take up, as in uttering. Shavah, means emptiness, nothingness. You shall not lift up, use, or utter, the name of the Lord your God in an empty manner, or use it to no good purpose, or in such a way as to indicate that God is nothing, or means nothing. Using it in such an empty, or idle way, would be tantamount to declaring that one believes there is no God.

It is for that reason that the Hebrew peoples do not utter the Tetragrammaton, the Yud hey vav hey, YHWH, the name of God. It was uttered by the high priest on the Day of Atonement in the Holy of Holies only after he had gone through a long process of spiritual cleansing, both for himself and the people of Israel. The rest of the time, the people devised all kinds of euphemisms to use instead of calling God by name.

Some of the more popular euphemisms were simply Ha Shem, the Name, or Ha Kadosh, the Holy, or Ha Makom, the Place. Until today, the more orthodox of the Jews refuse even to correctly pronounce the word for God, Elohim, rather, they will slightly corrupt it to Elokim. The reason for such action is reverence, a reverential awe for God, for His holiness, His righteousness, for His nature, that is basically lost in the western world. It is a mentality that views God as being so high, so lofty, so grand and glorious, so exalted above mankind that it ill behooves one to speak His name for fear of using it in an empty manner, as if He were nothing.

The fourth injunction reads in English, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy." The Hebrew root, shavat, shbt, means to cease, to rest. The feminine noun, Shabbat, is a Semitic word that has its roots in antiquity. In its most primitive form, it was observed simply by abstinence from labor. In some Assyrian documents Shabbattum is referred to as "a day of rest for one’s heart."

Shabbat is the seventh day and corresponds to Saturday on the Christian calendar. The Sabbath is Saturday, the seventh day, and only Saturday. When Christians gather together on Sunday and someone stands up and prays, "Lord, bless this Sabbath," it indicates just how little one knows about the Sabbath. In Exodus, chapter 20, observance of the Sabbath is attributed to God for His having rested on the seventh day of creation and, therefore, blessed the Sabbath and sanctified it.

In Deuteronomy 5:15, Moses enjoined observance of the Sabbath as a day in which Israel could remember that they were once slaves in the land of Egypt and God had brought them out by a mighty hand; hence, it is consecration in Deuteronomy 5:12 ff. The two principal words that are used in conjunction are zachor, (Exodus 20:8), and shamor, (Deuteronomy 5:12). Zachor means to remember, recall, call to mind, as in remembering past experiences. It means to remember in the sense of observing or commemorating a special day or event, and in this sense, zachor is parallel to shamor of Deuteronomy 5:12. Shamar, the verb, means to keep, watch, or preserve. It means to observe, or celebrate, as a festival. As such, the Sabbath is observed in Judaism until today.

One must note that this injunction is missing in the seven laws of Noah, in Jesus’ statement to the young man who asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" and from the injunctions imposed on the non-Jewish community in Acts 15. In biblical days, as it is until today in Israel, Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday night and ends at sundown on Saturday night.

The fifth injunction is interesting in that it is the only one linked to a promise. The injunction reads, "Honor your father and your mother…." The traditional promise linked to the injunction is "…that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God has given you." The word "honor" is the Hebrew root kaved. The piel (the intensive active form of the verb) as used in this passage, Exodus 10:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, means to make honorable, to honor, to glorify.

In Hebrew society, the family was everything. It was the foundation of society and the place where all activity, both the secular and the sacred, took place. There was no division of life or activity into the secular on the one hand and the sacred on the other. In Hebrew society, the child had a responsiblity to his parents for as long as they lived to insure their dignity and position in society. The concept of the responsibility of the child to the parents was woven into the whole fabric of Hebrew social structure. We know from the Nuzi Tablets that a childless couple was looked down upon by society.

The Nuzi Tablets illuminated our understanding relative to certain events about which we read in the biblical text. For example, one wonders why in Genesis, chapter 15, when God spoke to Abraham and told him that his reward would be exceedingly great, Abraham responded, "What will you give me as I go childless and the one who will inherit my possessions is Eliezer of Damascus’?"

This is perplexing in view of the fact that Lot, his nephew, was a blood relative and would seem to be the logical inheritor, while Eliezer is mentioned only in the context of a household steward. From the Nuzi Tablets, we learn that it was a custom for the childless couple to adopt a son who would be designated as the household steward. He was charged with caring for the family, seeing to their health and comfort and, finally, insuring them a proper and dignified burial at their death. He would then, in turn, inherit all of his adoptive parents’ possessions. Once the child had been adopted, he could never be disinherited unless the couple had a child of their own, in which case, their natural son would take precedence over the adoptive son in matters of inheritance.

In Jesus’ day, the custom of honoring one’s parents persisted, and on several occasions, Jesus upbraided the hypocritical religious leaders who had been negligent in honoring their parents, or who had attempted to circumvent their responsibility to their parents. In the Mishnah, much is said about the rebellious son, and Order Nezikin Tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 7, Mishnah 4, lists the rebellious and disobedient son among those who are to be stoned to death.

Deuteronomy 21:18 declares, "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or to the voice of his mother, though they chasten him, and will not hearken unto them, then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, ‘This, our son, is stubborn and rebellious. He does not hearken unto our voice. He is worthless, and a drunkard, and all of the men of his city shall stone him with stones until he die: so you shall put away the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."’

The next injunction reads in English, "You shall not kill." An incorrect translation and misunderstanding of this passage has led to the development of numerous erroneous concepts and theologies, such as the Theology of Pacifism. The injunction in Hebrew is very brief but quite clear. The root ratzach basically means to murder, or to slay with premeditation. Although it is used in the sense of manslaughter without intent, in the intensive active form of the verb, it means to assassinate. It has nothing to do with justifiable homicide, or with one fulfilling the national obligation or responsibility by serving in the armed forces.

According to Jewish law, a man was responsible for his own self-preservation, as well for the protection of his wife and family. In the Talmud, Sanhedrin 72a, it states, "If one comes to kill you, anticipate it and kill him first." The reason for such an injunction should be obvious, but for some reason, it has escaped us. Man was created in the image and likeness of God to be the representative of the totality of what God is here on this earth. If he allows himself to be killed, he has allowed just that much God-likeness to be cut off from the face of the earth.

The seventh injunction is probably the most difficult one to treat in the list of ten. It reads in English simply, "You shall not commit adultery." The problem lies in the complicated definition of adultery according to Jewish law. To adequately treat the subject would take far more than the limited space I am allowed here. Basically, adultery, in a physical sense, was voluntary sexual intercourse between a married woman, or one engaged through payment of the bridal price, with a man other than her husband.

Simply stated, in view of customs regarding marriage and the husband and wife relationship in biblical days, adultery was the violation of another man’s personal property. Although, in Judaism, the woman was viewed as an equal with man in the partnership of matrimony; nonetheless, a bridal price had been paid to her father, or guardian, for her hand. In that sense, she was considered as the property of her husband.

The Encyclopedia Jadaica, Volume Two, page 313, points this out, "The extra-marital intercourse of a married man is not, per se, a crime, either in biblical or later Jewish law. This distinction stems from the economic aspect of Israelite marriage; the wife was the husband’s possession, of a special sort, and adultery constituted a violation of the husband’s exclusive right to her; the wife, as the husband’s possession, had no such right to him."

The subject was further complicated by both polygamy and concubinage, which were commonly practiced in the biblical period. Many passages in the biblical text, in speaking of adultery, are used figuratively of idolatrous worship, or spiritual adultery. Again, the subject is so complicated that it deserves a much more exhaustive treatment.

The eighth injunction states in English, "You shall not steal," or simply, in Hebrew, lo tignov. The Hebrew ganav, means to take by stealth. A ganav, is a thief, one who breaks in and steals. There are other words in Hebrew that are used in a similar context, i.e., gazal, means to seize, to rob, to tear away, to plunder, to take violent possession of. A shoded, is one who despoils, who devastates and, although used basically for one who brings something to ruin is, at times, used parallel with the ganav.

Stealing has to do with deception and, at this point, I want to emphasize that there is very little difference between the one who steals, or takes that which does not belong to him, whatever that might be, and the one who deceives, one who is very closely akin to the liar. Both have deception as their motive, with the intent to do someone harm. You can take it as a general rule of thumb that, if a person will lie to you with the intent to do you harm, he will also steal from you. Notice that intent is everything.

The ninth injunction is translated into English, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." In Hebrew, Lo ta’ane bereacha ed sheker. An ed sheker is one who bears, or gives, false testimony in a court of law to his neighbor’s detriment, or perhaps even death. Sheker, is deception, falsehood, that which betrays. It also means fraud, wrong, and in the context of Exodus 20:16, an injurious falsehood, and given in a court of law. The testimony is given with full knowledge of its falsity and of the deception involved with the intent to do injury, or damage.

The old jibe, "One lie is just as bad as the other," or, "A white lie is just as bad as a black lie," or that "A lie is a lie is a lie" is, as you can see, not necessarily true. Again, motive and intent are at the heart of this injunction. What is one’s intent? What is one’s motive? Is it possible, upon occasion, to not tell the whole truth for the purpose of doing someone good rather than harm? Or, that not telling the whole truth would be the kindest thing that one could do?

With our words, our comments, one must consider relationships. One must be sensitive to feelings. What is the kindest thing that I can do? What is going to be beneficial and uplifting, rather than injurious and damaging? The thief and the liar are both out to do you harm, to their own personal gain.

The last injunction is translated in English, "You shall not covet…" Lo tachmod. This is an interesting passage and an interesting word. The word chamad is used by Jesus in Matthew 5:28 when He says, "If you look upon a woman to lust her…." Chamad, in a negative sense, means an inordinate, ungoverned, selfish desire of idolatrous tendency. In other words, the individual is so consumed by his desire that the object of his desire becomes like a thing of worship, like an idol, or a god, that he must possess at any cost.

In this context, the coveting of his neighbor’s house, or wife, or servants, or whatever the possessions might be, implies that he has become so consumed with possessions that he will go to any lengths to possess them, including the violation of the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth injunctions.

END.

Is Paul Against the Law?

Is the Torah to be considered as a dead husband that nobody liked anyway? This is the way many Christians interpret Romans 7:1-6: “For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies she is released from the law of her husband” (verse 2 of Romans 7:1-6). Paul refers to an ancient halachah (principle of the law) to illustrate his new relationship to the Torah because of his faith in Jesus. But one question is never asked when studying Romans 7:1-6.

By Brad H. Young

Is the Torah to be considered as a dead husband that nobody liked anyway? This is the way many Christians interpret Romans 7:1-6: “For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies she is released from the law of her husband” (verse 2 of Romans 7:1-6). Paul refers to an ancient halachah (principle of the law) to illustrate his new relationship to the Torah because of his faith in Jesus. But one question is never asked when studying Romans 7:1-6. And it is only when the full impact of Paul’s Jewish heritage is understood in light of his entire teaching concerning the believer’s response to the Torah that this question can be carefully considered. Nonetheless, we must ask: Was Paul speaking about the death of the Torah or was he referring to the death of the flesh? Is the Torah, for Paul, a dead husband?

Christians must take the study of the Torah and Jewish approaches to the law very seriously. Paul certainly did. He was almost consumed by the question as it related to his missionary work as a Jewish apostle sent to the pagan Gentiles. Unfortunately it is seldom recognized that much of what Paul says about the Torah must be interpreted in the context of his understanding of Jews and Gentiles with their special distinction as equal partners in God’s family. The Greek text of Romans 10:4, moreover, is often mistranslated to read, “For Christ is the end of the law…” instead of, “For Messiah (i.e. Christ) is the aim (or goal) of the law.” How else can one read Paul’s strong affirmation, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary we establish the law.” Either Paul is a schizophrenic, or some of his interpreters have neglected key aspects of his thought while basing their interpretations only upon selected texts divorced from their place in Paul’s overall message.

Here we will seek to establish the background of Romans 7:1-6, in order to view Paul’s approach to the law, the flesh, and the analogy of the “dead husband” in the context of first-century Jewish thought. Otherwise the text will be taken from Paul to distort his message. To interpret Paul correctly on this passage, it is first imperative to recognize that the saying, “when a person dies he is free from the law and the commandments” (kivan shemet adam naaseh chofshi men hatorah vehamitzvot), was a well-known concept in halachah, which probably was almost proverbial in ancient Jewish thought (b. Nidah 61b and parallels). When Paul says that he is writing to those who know the law (Romans 7:1), it is clear that he speaks concerning a practice of halachah with which the Jews in the congregation of Rome would be quite familiar. The marriage laws concerning a woman and her husband would also be fairly well known. Of interest to the issue is the fact that Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, who according to Luke was the teacher of Paul in his early days as a student in Jerusalem, addressed questions relating to these laws in the Mishnah. Gamaliel the Elder taught that a woman is free to remarry even if only one witness gives testimony that her husband had died (m.Yeb. 16:7). Scholars have noted that the passage in Romans 7:1-6 might well betray the influence of Paul’s teacher Gamaliel. While the similarity between Paul and Gamaliel on this point of halachah should not be denied, it is also true that such teachings were probably common knowledge to Jewish men and women who lived pious lives according to their devout faith. Paul could have been acquainted with this principle from many sources, including Gamaliel the Elder. In fact, it was because such a principle was well known that Paul employed the halachah to make his point. It also demonstrates Paul’s belief in the value of the halachah and his faithfulness to his Jewish roots.

The problem is that most interpreters, probably quite unintentionally, destroy Paul’s message by saying, in so many words, that since Paul died to the Torah he is free to do whatever he pleases. Christians are free from the bondage of the law. But does that approach make sense when one studies Romans 6? If Paul employs a known analogy from halachah in Romans 7:1-6, perhaps the Jewish tradition can throw light upon Paul’s message and the conclusion he desires to draw from the evidence he cites. The sage, R. Simeon ben Pazzi, taught “…and the servant is free from his master”(Job 3:19). A person, as long as he lives is a servant to two masters: the servant of his Creator and of his [evil] inclination. When he does the will of his Creator, he angers his inclination, and when he does the will of his inclination, he angers his Creator. When he dies, he is freed, ‘the servant is free from his master!’ (Ruth Rabbah 4:14, M. Lerner pp.78-80). Rabbi Simeon ben Pazzi’s saying, “When he dies, he is freed…” not only recalls Paul’s words in Romans 7:1-6, but also provides a clear parallel in thought to his discussion of the servant who either is enslaved to his evil inclination or to his Creator in the preceding chapter of Romans. In Romans chapter 6, Paul teaches that an individual is either a servant of sin to obey the flesh or a servant of righteousness to obey God.

David Flusser and Schmuel Safrai have commented upon the passage from Ruth Rabbah and Jesus’ teaching about serving one of two masters, money or God. One point of their discussion should be quoted here. They observe, according to Rabbi Shimeon ben Pazzi, man, while he is alive, is the slave of his inclination, but after his death, his only master is God. This approach also has a direct bearing upon Paul and his analogy of marriage. Did Paul desire to abolish the law by saying that a person has died spiritually through faith in Christ? When the passage is studied in its context, this conclusion cannot be forced. A person dies to the sin nature, i.e., his or her evil inclination, in order that the individual may become a servant of God alone. Paul says that the sinful flesh dies so that the person may become a servant of righteousness (see Romans 6). They live to God.

Are Christians permitted to violate the law because of their faith in Christ? Did Paul believe that Christians are now able to commit adultery because of grace? On the contrary, Paul maintained a high standard of morality and ethics. When he wrote his epistle to the Galatians for instance, he spelled out the works of the flesh as well as the fruit of the Spirit. (see Galatians 5:13-25). He also maintained that if one is circumcised that he is required to keep all the law, i.e., not only moral laws of the sons of Noah but also all the commandments of the Sinai covenant with the children of Israel (Galatians 5:3). According to Luke, Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:1-3). In any case it does not follow that Paul considered the Torah a legalistic system as opposed to grace. The law is imbued with God’s grace and his divine compassion. Furthermore, for Paul the Torah spoke of Christ’s mission. Although no one can be saved by keeping the law even for Paul faith without corresponding actions has no meaning. Through grace the believer is given the power to live a holy life pleasing to God and thus fulfill Torah (see Romans 3:31). The point Paul was making is simple. The individual dies to his sinful flesh. The law is not sin. In the marriage analogy of Romans 7:1-6, one should ask: Did Paul mean that one dies to the Torah or did he mean that the individual dies to sin? Our study indicates that for Paul, the sinful flesh dies in order that the person may live and serve God. While Christian interpreters often claim that because one has died in Christ the teaching of Torah is void, it would seem that Paul could by no means agree. He was not against the law. In some respects the wrong and popular approach to the marriage analogy of Romans 7 is inexcusable because Paul himself cautions, “What shall we say then? Is the law Sin? Certainly not!” (Romans 7:7) In fact, Paul affirms that the Torah is spiritual (Romans 7:14 and 8:3). It is holy and good (Romans 7:12). It is a custodian that leads the believer to Christ by demonstrating the individual’s need for spiritual power and salvation through faith.

The problem is sin. But the Torah is neither the problem nor its solution. In the apocalypse of Ezra, a Jewish text written not long after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, we read, “For we who have received the law and sinned will perish, as well as our heart which received it; the law, however, does not perish but remains in its glory” (2 Esdras 9:36-37). The parallels to Pauline theology in this text are remarkable. Paul’s concern for sin is deeply embedded in its Jewish background.

Sin does not cancel the law. The Torah reveals the sin by exposing human unrighteousness in light of divine holiness. Paul’s love for the Torah is not diminished by his experience with Christ. But his entire worldview has shifted from being Torah-centered to a Christ-centered approach to his life. That life of righteousness must be characterized by a proper understanding of the divine will as expressed in Torah. Christ is the aim of the Torah and the Christian fulfills it by faith.

In short, I do not believe that the Apostle Paul compared the Torah to someone’s deceased husband. He did speak of death to the flesh, which becomes the seed of the resurrection life that empowers believers to obey God by living righteous lives. Through Christ, the believer can do all things. His grace is sufficient. Do we make void the law by faith?

In the Beginning Was it So? Who Says?

Subservience and women seemed to go together as ‘peas and carrots’ – at least in the conservative brotherhood that I was raised in. Yes, women had their place in the body of Christ – so long as they stayed in a classroom with children – not in their teenage years – and sat piously simple and didn’t raise a question in a class of mixed company (meaning men and women). How much more simply could Paul have said it? "Women, keep silent, if you have a question ask your husband at home." End of discussion – it’s in the Bible? Right?

By Barry Fike

Subservience and women seemed to go together as ‘peas and carrots’ – at least in the conservative brotherhood that I was raised in. Yes, women had their place in the body of Christ – so long as they stayed in a classroom with children – not in their teenage years – and sat piously simple and didn’t raise a question in a class of mixed company (meaning men and women). How much more simply could Paul have said it? "Women, keep silent, if you have a question ask your husband at home." End of discussion – it’s in the Bible? Right?

Well, so are those scriptures that talk about women having their heads covered, and not to wear costly adornment. Wait, didn’t Shakespeare say something about ‘Consistency, thou art a virtue’? If he didn’t, he should have. How inconsistent the church has been on a subject of great importance only continued to frustrate questions that I honestly had on this topic until I began to study the Jewish background of such scriptures and the practices that Paul was obviously referring to. I was led into a study of sociology (my wife would be proud) and learned that people, like today, didn’t live in a box but had a whole society of feelings, temptations, languages, and cultural shifts that defined who they were as a society. Paul, being of both Roman and Jewish lineage, certainly had a feeling for both cultures and understood, as none other would, or possibly could, what these differences meant when introduced to the "Jewish" God and his manifestation upon this earth. It’s no wonder that those at Athens scoffed at Paul and his resurrection ‘tale’ while others were interested to listen further. Philosophy is interesting so long as nobody really takes it that serious. But, I digress.

So what about women and their role in the church? For such a discussion so many factors need to be referred to that a book is needed. (coming) But for the brevity of this article let me reference a few factors just to get you thinking. As they said in the "Sound of Music" – "Let’s start at the very beginning; it’s a very nice place to start."

"And God created man [Adam] in His image, in the image of God did He create him, male and female He created them." (Gen. 1:27)

So many times we read so carelessly over this passage in English that we rarely have taken time to see the intricacies and depth of the message being given about the first creation created directly from God. (Yes, I know that we all are in a way but that’s another discussion)

From Genesis 1 we travel to chapter 2 and read that woman was created solely as an afterthought, God took a rib, created woman, and she blew it. Story told – from then on in history women are subservient and misunderstood by most cultures except one: Judaism! Within Judaism we find that women were heralded as the foundational cornerstone of the home, they had rights within society to own property, take care of the home, at times run a business, and even more rarely study and become a Rabbi. Have you read Proverbs 31:10-31 lately? It’s no wonder that her works should praise her in the gates – she did practically everything except sit at the gates, the sacred stomping grounds for those in charge of the city and the study of the Holy word. In other words, the society of the Jews was grounded not upon the men but upon the women.

What’s the point? We read the same scriptures and come away with completely different ideas concerning women and their role in not only society but within religion. The difference is that they study it from Hebrew and we, (we meaning ‘Christians’) primarily from English. Without insight into the Hebrew language and commentaries of the Jews (Talmud, Mishnah, etc.) our reflections may led us into not only doctrines that not only have shallow underpinnings but damming as well.

When Paul told Timothy to "Study (spoudazō ) to show thyself approved unto God" (KJV), or "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth", (ASV) I believe that he meant that before you make doctrine hard and fast be sure that you’ve done your work. "To exert oneself, endeavor, give diligence" is what spoudazo means according to Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon (G4704). In other words with this subject, as any biblical concept, we are dealing with another language and other social groups; if you want to deal with the closest Biblical sacred ties ending with Jesus Christ and his movement called ‘the Kingdom’ in the first century and about 2000 years in another part of the world that we often misunderstand even to this day it’s not going to be that simple. Nobody said it was going to be easy, and it isn’t unless you are from the school that believes that the Bible means what it says and says what it means. If you were part of the original audience then I’d have to agree with you. Since we aren’t, and it wasn’t written in English, and it wasn’t written in the USA, or any other part of the present day modern world, then it behooves us to get some decent study material in front of ourselves and delve into the word on a deeper level than simply listening to brother so and so and following him as blindly as the blind following the blind – they both end up in the ditch. I’ll let you draw the analogy from here as it applies.

I’ve said all this to say this: to understand these concepts that were originally given, and have been studied for thousands of years, you’re going to have to do a little study aside from this article and any book that you’ll read on the subject. However, with that said, here’s a primer course into a bible study that has helped me understand women, their role in the society, and, more important, their role in the church.

A Parallel Account of Creation

With this article, "A Parallel Account of Creation," I want to start a series of brief articles that are designed to introduce you to the history of the Biblical text and to address some of the difficult questions one finds therein. This material will vary in length and will carry us through for some time. I hope it answers some of your questions and serves to assist you in your study.

By Roy B. Blizzard

Introduction

With this article, "A Parallel Account of Creation," I want to start a series of brief articles that are designed to introduce you to the history of the Biblical text and to address some of the difficult questions one finds therein. This material will vary in length and will carry us through for some time. I hope it answers some of your questions and serves to assist you in your study.

In Genesis 1, the word for God is the Hebrew word Elohim. The basic meaning of Elohim is power or the "all powerful one." It is Elohim in Genesis 1:1 who creates the totality of the universe ex niholo or out of nothing. The Hebrew word is "bara" and "bara" is always used of divine activity. We might say that Elohim represents the creative aspect of deity.

In Genesis 2, the word for God changes from Elohim to YHWH or Yahweh, which seems to indicate the covenant aspect of deity and there is a switch from Elohim’s creation of the earth to His creation and relationship with the crowning achievement of His creation, namely humankind. In Genesis 2:7, the text reads:

And Yahweh formed or fashioned humankind.

The term Adam probably refers to humankind as is seen in Genesis 1:26 when God says,

Let Us make Adam in Our image, in Our likeness…and God created (bara) Adam in His image and in His likeness, male and female created He them.

Then, in Genesis 5:1 it says,

"in that day God created (bara) Adam. He made him His likeness; male and female created He them and He blessed them and He called their name Adam in the day that they were created.

In Midrash, a Jewish commentary, man was created originally with two faces, i.e., male and female halves and only later the two halves were divided. The word for faces can also mean outlook, approach or perspective. There are two facets to a concept. The original man contained a duality which was later separated into male and female, each with its own personality and outlook. (1)

God’s creation is given a garden to tend, the Garden of Eden. The word "Eden" in Hebrew means simply luxury or delight. That is, the garden of God where everything was provided that man could possibly need. God reserved a small portion for himself (verse 17), the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.

It is interesting to note in Genesis 2:20 and following that Adam named all of the creatures of the earth but the statement is made concerning Adam "no helpmate could be found." In the English text it states that God caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and while he slept, He took one of his ribs and from that rib He fashioned for Adam a wife.

In Hebrew, the word "helpmate" is ezer knegdo (Brown Driver Briggs [BDB] 5048-2) which literally means, "one equal to and adequate for in every way." The word translated rib in Hebrew tzela (BDB 6763) can mean a side chamber or a cell. The word is never used again in the Hebrew text for a human rib. It is interesting to note that this statement was written thousands of years before there was any discipline known as Science and before we knew that a single cell contains all of the necessary ingredients to make an exact duplication of the creature from which the cell was taken. We call it a clone.

Genesis 3 introduces us to the serpent (in Hebrew nachash means enchanter, one who practices divination, corruption or a serpent), which we are told is more subtle than any of the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made. Notice that is does not say that the serpent is a beast of the field. According to the Talmud, Baba Batra 16a, the serpent symbolizes the evil inclination or the "yetzer hara."

In Judaism, man is born with two inclinations: an inclination to do evil (the yetzer hara) and the inclination to do good (the yetzer hatov). Both of these inclinations are essential constituents of humankind without which there would be no free will, the power to choose between good and evil.

In the recently published Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text (Onkelos on the Torah, Understanding the Biblical Text, Genesis by Israel Drazen and Stanley M. Wagner, Gefen Publishing House, Jerusalem 2006, pg 15), they asked the question, "would we be considered irreverent if we suggested that the entire Bible story of the creation of humankind and their sin in the Garden of Eden is an allegory; that is, a story that reveals a truth which is embedded in the text and shall need not be taken literally? (1) Could Adam and Eve be humankind? (2) Could the Garden of Eden be the world as it could be if we only harken to God’s command? (3) Could the serpent be the variety of temptations in life which draws us away from serving God? (4) Could the sin of Adam and Eve be the choices we have the power to make and the punishment be the inevitable consequences of sin?

The Bible story continues in Genesis 4 with the birth of Cain and his brother Abel, Cain’s slaying of his brother and being banished eastward from the Garden where he founded a city, married and raised a family. The question has frequently been asked, where did Cain get his wife? It is incorrect to assume that Cain, Abel and Seth were the only children of Adam and Eve. In Genesis 5:4 we are told that Adam lived 800 years and begat sons and daughters. Tradition says that Adam had 33 sons and 27 daughters. According to Biblical chronology in the 130 years from Adam’s creation to Abel’s murder, a good many generations had arisen with a population perhaps in the thousands.(2)

Biblical Chronology

Problems with Chronology

Many problems have arisen throughout the passing centuries over the issue of dating. Numerous chronological tables have been constructed utilizing the dates found in the Biblical text for the beginning of Creation, for the date of the Flood and other events mentioned in the Biblical text. To the casual reader, it seems to be specific; so-and-so begat so-and-so, and so-and-so begat so-and-so and they lived for so many years and begat so-and-so and so forth. So, the assumption is made that one can add up all of these dates and arrive at an accurate date for a particular event. This is essentially what was done by Bishop Usher when, by taking the various dates, he concluded that the date of creation was 4004 BCE. However, Bishop Usher wasn’t the only one. There were at least 34 other chronologists that attempted to determine the date of creation and no two of them agree with one another. The fact is that "begat" in Hebrew does not mean the same as it does in English. It can mean that so-and-so was the father of so-and-so or it can mean that so-and-so was the ancestor of so-and-so. So, in Hebrew, one could say "A" begat "Z" and it would be correct.

Secondly, the ancients, not just the Hebrews, placed considerable importance on numbers. Numbers often carried a certain symbolism. It is a study known as Gematria in which certain numbers have a certain meaning: for example, one is the number of unity; two is the number of union; three is the number of deity; four is the number of the earth; six is the number of man; seven is the number of perfection; eight is the number of the order of new things; ten is the number of earthly completion, the sum of six plus four and so on.

Certain things and certain events will be presented in the Biblical text according to a certain numerical pattern. As an example, in Matthew chapter one, we have the genealogy of Jesus. Notice in verse 17 that the genealogy is constructed according to three divisions of 14 generations each, 14 being the number of the sum of 10 and 4, or earthly completion.

In verse 8 it says that Asa begat Jehoshaphat and Jehoshaphat begat Jehoram and Jehoram begat Uzziah. In 2 Chronicles 21, we read of the genealogy of these kings from the detailed record of the Kings of Judah and we note something of great importance. In Chapter 21 of 2 Chronicles it is mentioned that Jehoshaphat died and his son Jehoram reigned in his stead.

In Chapter 22, Jehoram’s son Ahaziah succeeds to the throne and after his death, his mother Athaliah reigned over Judah. Athaliah is killed in chapter 24 and she is succeeded by Joash. Joash, in turn, is succeeded by his son, Amaziah, in chapter 25 who is, in turn, succeeded by his son Uzziah. Four generations are omitted in this genealogical record as they are working within the framework of the number 14.

Numbers, genealogy and chronology in the Biblical text are often fictive, symbolic and/or metaphoric. Attempting to create an accurate geological table is further complicated by the fact that the Hebrew Massoratic, the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch and other textual variations give differing numbers for many Biblical events. For all of these reasons, the attempt to connect Biblical chronology with real, historical time has inevitably failed. It is really not until the time of Abraham and the Patriarchs that we begin to touch down on firm chronological ground.

The Flood of Noah

Genesis 6-9

The story of Noah and the great flood begins with God observing man’s sinful ways and declares that He will destroy the whole earth by flood. However, God found one righteous man, Noah, and declared that He would spare him and his family.

He then instructed Noah to build an ark for him, his family and representatives of the birds and animals of the earth. On the same day they entered into the ark, "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened and the rain came upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights." All creatures died except Noah, his family and those with him in the ark. At the end of 150 days, the ark came to rest on a mountain in the region of Ararat (150,000 square miles) and after a period of time Noah and his family left the ark, made a sacrifice to God and God resolved that He would never again destroy all life in this manner and set a rainbow in the clouds as a testimony to His promise."

The story of Noah and the flood has been the subject for much discussion. Is this a true historical account? Was the whole earth at one time destroyed by flood? If there was indeed an ark, where did it come to rest? Some texts have it resting on Mount Ararat and others on Mount Kardu. Was it indeed possible to construct a vessel that was large enough to contain representatives of all the known species of animals and birds today? Over the centuries there has been much discussion of the subject of Noah, the ark and the great flood.

The 19th century saw the rise of rationalism and the beginnings of Middle Eastern archeology. From a geological and archaeological perspective there is absolutely no evidence that the earth was ever destroyed by a worldwide inundation.

In 1849, the British archaeologist, Sir Henry Layard, excavating in the library of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal (7th century BCE) in Nineveh, found a large epic poem preserved on 12 clay tablets written in Cuneiform, known today as the Epic of Gilgamesh. There are two main versions of this epic, a Sumerian version and the Babylonian version, and it is among the earliest known works of literary fiction, dating as early as 2150 to 2000 BCE. The 11th tablet of the epic tells the story of one Utnapishtim who is the Babylonian correspondent to Noah. The story contains striking correspondence to Noah and the Biblical flood and perhaps predates the Bible story by several hundred years. However, this is not entirely clear. There is so much similarity in these early flood stories that it is difficult to know which story predates the others. One written account may predate another but it is entirely possible that they all share in common an earlier account than the written ones we currently have. The entire text of the epic can be found in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard, Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J., 1969, pg 72-99. It can also be found on the Internet under the Epic of Gilgamesh.

In addition to this flood story, there are many other groups of people the world over that have both oral and written traditions of a worldwide inundation, most of which bear remarkable similarities to the details of the Biblical account of the flood.

Tower of Babel

Genesis 11

Following the account of the flood, we read the interesting story of the migration of mankind to the east where they settled on the plain of Shinar (Sumeria or Babylonia). To understand the events of Genesis 10-11, it is necessary to note an interesting statement in Genesis 4:16.

To Seth was born a son and he called his name Enosh. And at that time man began to call upon the Lord by name. In other words, God had a name by which He was known, Yahweh.

The leader of the eastward migration was Nimrod. The name Nimrod comes from Hebrew marad which means a rebel or to rebel. Nimrod was a hunter of people to rebel against God. He caused the world to rebel by constructing a tower whose top would reach into heaven that they might make for themselves a name. As God had a name (YHWH or Yahweh) they, too, wanted a name. The name of the place where God confounded their language and scattered them abroad is Babel, which in Hebrew means the "gate to God" (Bab = gate, El = God).

Because of their rebellion, God confounds their language, in Hebrew balal, so that they were no longer able to understand each other. They moved away and settled in other parts of the earth. As with the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts of the flood, there is also a Sumerian myth similar to the Tower of Babel where Enmerkar of Uruk is building a massive tower called a Ziggurat in Eridu. He implores the God, Enki, to intervene that the whole universe may address the God in a single language. It is possible that the ruins of the Ziggurats, which still stand today throughout ancient Babylonia, inspired the story of the Tower of Babel.

Various traditions similar to the Tower of Babel are found in Central America. One such declares that the ancient Toltecs, after men multiplied following a great flood, erected a tall tower to preserve themselves but their languages were confounded and they went to separate parts of the earth.

Dr. Livingston reported in 1849 that the Africans he met near Lake Ngami had a similar tradition.

The purpose of the story of the Tower of Babel is to explain the origin of the various nations and the multiplicity of languages. The construction of the tower was an act of defiance against God directed by the rebel Nimrod. The lesson to be learned is the Lord’s contempt for human pride.

Abraham and the Beginning of the Hebrew Nation

Genesis 12-25

These chapters introduce us to one of the most important personages in the entire Bible, Abraham. When we are introduced to him, his name is Av Ram which means exalted father. YHWH, or Yahweh speaks to Abraham and tells him to go forth from the country of his birth and journey to a land that YHWH would show him. Additionally, there is the promise made that, "I will make you a great nation; I will bless you, make your name great and you will be a blessing (to others)."

YHWH Further promises, "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you and all the families of the earth will be blessed (because of you)."

According to Genesis 11, they depart from Ur of the Chaldees for the land of Canaan. At one time, scholars believed that Ur of Chaldees, Abraham’s home, was located in southern Mesopotamia near the juncture of the Euphrates River and the Persian Gulf.

Much is known about this ancient city as it has been excavated since the 1920’s. Excavations were directed by Sir C. Leonard Woolley between 1926 and 1931. Excavations were undertaken in the Royal Cemetery. Approximately 1850 tombs were excavated including the tombs of royalty dating back to as early as 2600 BCE. Many magnificent artifacts were unearthed, most of which are in the British Museum in London, England.

The artifacts excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley suggest that this ancient city boasted an organized government, an advanced culture and educational system and probably as many as 75,000 or more inhabitants, all of this was 700-1000 years before the time of Abraham. Whether this Ur was the home of Abraham or not is questioned today. Some scholars suggest that in view of the fact that there were several Urs throughout Mesopotamia, that the Ur of Abraham was closer to the city of Haran, the first stop in their journey to the land of Canaan. When we read the Biblical story of their journey, we must read very carefully to garner some of the main points that assist us in better understanding these events.

First of all, we are told that Abraham took his wife, Sarai, and his nephew, Lot, and a young man by the name of Eliezer who is the household steward of Abraham’s household. He also took considerable possessions and they set out for Canaan. Abraham was 75 years old at the beginning of their journey. Our mental image is of an old man and a woman and a young boy and a few possessions setting out on a long trip. However, in Genesis 13:2, it says that Abraham was very rich in cattle and silver and gold. In Genesis 13:7, we are told of a quarrel between his herdsmen and those of Lot. In other words, we are talking of a mass migration of tens of people along with hundreds of animals as they make their way toward the land of Canaan.

Abraham, in Genesis 14:13, is called The Hebrew. What is a Hebrew? Where does the word come from? Why is Abraham called The Hebrew? Not surprisingly, there is considerable discussion on this subject. The word for Hebrew is Ivri. In Genesis 11:14, we read of one Ever in the genealogy of Abraham. Hebrew could refer back to this ancestor of Abraham or some have suggested it comes from the Hebrew word Avar (same root) which means "across." They were called Hebrews because they came from across the river. At the same period of time that we read about the Hebrews, we read from Assyrian documents about a group of people known as the Habiru. In Egypt, they are known as the Apiru. From Sumerian and Hittite documents, we read about a group of people known as the Sa Gaz. The ideogram for Sa Gaz is similar to a sword. These people are sometimes referred to as mercenaries or cutthroats.

From Uguritic texts from Ras Shamra we read of the ibrim and we further notice in the ancient texts that all of these terms, ibrim, habiru, apiru, sa gaz, are used interchangeably and do not refer to a particular ethnic group. Rather, they seem to refer to a group of people who have no king, allegiance to no kingdom and are basically nomadic and wander from place to place doing and taking what they want.

As we delve deeper into the life of Abraham this term seems to fit him and his people perfectly. He comes down into the land, goes where he wants, settles where he wants, takes what he wants and those in the land refer to him as Avram Haivri, Abraham the Hebrew. It is not long after they enter into the land of Canaan that their numbers increase to the extent that Abraham and his nephew Lot separate with Lot going to the east to Sodom and Abraham remaining in the land of Canaan proper.

In Genesis 14, we have the interesting story of the war between the kings of Babylon and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and the capture of Lot. Abraham arms 318 of his men and journeys far to the north as far as Damascus (in present day Syria). He rescues Lot and returns to the land of Canaan. Along the way, he stops in Salem (ancient Jerusalem) where he meets one Melchizedek, a servant of the most high God. Much discussion has taken place concerning Melchizedek. His name, malchi tzedek means simply, "my king is righteous." He is simply the priest king of Jerusalem and as such, Abraham gives him a tenth of the spoils that he took from the Babylonian kings. In return, he is blessed by Melchizedek.

In Genesis 15, we read an interesting story in relation to Eliezer, Abraham’s household steward. Who is this man? In the 1920’s, archaeologists excavating at the Mesopotamian sites of Mari and Nuzi found thousands of ancient documents inscribed on clay tablets reflecting on conditions and customs in Mesopotamia circa 2000-1500 BCE. These ancient texts enabled us to understand many of the stories found in these early chapters of Genesis.

Among the ancient Mesopotamians, a couple was considered cursed if they had no children. Nuzian law stipulated that a childless couple could ensure the continuation of their family by adopting a child, usually a slave, who would take the place of a son. This child would be designated as the "household steward." His responsibility would be to look after their property during their lifetime and to ensure a decent burial upon their death. This adopted son would then inherit all of their possessions. If, however, a natural son was eventually born, then the adopted son would lose his inheritance rights. Apparently this is the situation in Genesis 15 where Abraham expresses his concern that Eliezer would inherit his vast possessions.

At this point it might be appropriate to ask the question, "Why was Abraham – of all the people on the earth – selected to become the father of this nation that was to be a blessing for all mankind? The answer seems to be obvious.

In Genesis 18:19, God says, "For I have known him that he will instruct his sons and his daughters after him that they will keep the way of YHWH and do righteousness and justice in order that the Lord may bring upon Abraham all that He spoke unto him." The emphasis here is upon teaching; the instruction to his children and their children after them to do that which is right and just in order that they might be blessed and that they might be a blessing.

From the legal documents in Nuzi, we have a parallel text to Genesis 15 which relates to how, in certain marriage contracts, a childless wife would be required to provide her husband with a substitute to preserve the continuity of the family.

Abraham’s concern that Eliezer might become his heir was due to the fact that Sarai, Abraham’s wife, had bore him no children.

When Sarai was 75 and Abraham was 85, she gave up hope. God had promised that Abraham’s seed would inherit the land and thus she decided that perhaps his seed would be borne by another woman and she could treat it as her own. Thus, she presented her maid servant, Hagar, to Abraham.

We learn, again, from the Nuzi texts that if a couple was barren it was the custom for the woman to provide a concubine to produce offspring. Sarai and Abraham are following the custom of their day.

Hagar, Sarai’s maid servant was an Egyptian. Hagar conceived and bore a son to Abraham when Abraham was 86 years old. Abraham named the son Ishmael, which means God will hear and is a reference to Abraham’s prayers in Genesis 17:20.

When Abraham was 99 years old, YHWH appears to Abraham as El Shaddai (the all sufficient one) and declares that he will establish His covenant with Abraham and tells him that his name will no longer be Avram but Avraham, the father of a multitude. Sarai’s name is changed from Sarai to Sarah, meaning princess to all people and He declares that He will not only bless her but that Abraham will have a son by her. Upon hearing this, Sarah laughed. When the child was born, he was named Isaac which means laughter.

Endnotes

(1) Breishes, the Artscroll Tanach Series, Mesorah Publishing Company, Vol. 1(a), page 72)

(2) Haley’s Bible Handbook, pub. 1963, page 69

What Has Happened to the Church? Is it Pagan or Hebrew?

Have you ever stopped and come to grips with how bad the spiritual situation is in the world today? It is frightening when we give ourselves to some serious thought and realize how far we have digressed from what was intended to our present state. We read of a united Church in the New Testament – a Church that was alive, dynamic, and moving out in a dimension of power and authority.

By Roy B. Blizzard

Have you ever stopped and come to grips with how bad the spiritual situation is in the world today? It is frightening when we give ourselves to some serious thought and realize how far we have digressed from what was intended to our present state. We read of a united Church in the New Testament – a Church that was alive, dynamic, and moving out in a dimension of power and authority.

Today, however, we see over 400 warring Protestant denominations, Catholics, and many others who all use the same Bible as a foundation for their beliefs. Each one of these groups is calling out, “We have the way” or, “Lo, here is Christ.” The result of all these splits, feuds, and divisions is that most of us are running around in some kind of fog, bewildered, and asking essentially the same question that Pilate asked 2,000 years ago: “What is truth?.”

It is almost inconceivable for us to believe that such a thing has happened. But, it really has. What is of the utmost importance now is “What are we going to do about it?” First, we must find out how it happened, when it happened, with whom it happened, and why it happened. This requires study because we are dealing with factual history which can be substantiated by historical evidences. We can trace the factionalization of the Church from the very beginning, down to the present day. We can name the individuals involved, the dates, when it started, why it started, how it started, and what the end results were.

The digression actually started in the latter part, of the 1st century of the present era. It was hinted at in the writings of the Apostle John in I, II, and III John, and in the Book of Revelation. As the Gentiles came into the Church, a problem developed that most have never noticed. Remember, Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. The scriptures from which Jesus taught were Jewish. Every writer of the New Testament was Jewish, with the possible exception of Luke, who many believe was a proselyte. We are dealing with Hebrew people, Hebrew words, and a Hebrew culture which defines the meanings of the words of the Bible.

Somewhere between 90 to 96 of the present era, after the death of the last Apostle, John, we have a head-on collision as the Hebrew words of the Bible are assigned new meanings by the gentile church leaders who are products of the Greek/Roman culture. The leadership of the Church shifted from Jerusalem to Antioch and finally, Rome. By 311 CE when Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, issued the Edict of Toleration, the spiritual situation was already critical. Just think of it, Constantine, head of the greatest empire on the face of the earth at that time, became a Christian. Anything that was good enough for the Emperor was good enough for the subjects, so, Constantine began to award medals, prizes, and money to those who converted to Christianity. Would it surprise you to know that most who converted did so for the medals, prizes, and money?

Constantine came from a pagan background and did not have the foggiest idea about spiritual matters. The people who converted came from pagan backgrounds and had nothing to which they could relate the teachings of the Bible. As they encountered these foreign terms such as “baptism,” “Lord’s Supper,” “repentance,” “Sabbath,” etc., they took certain concepts from paganism and simply carried them over into the structure of the Church, assigning them a Christian meaning. For example, how did imagery get within the structure of the Church? How many of you have ever seen a picture or a statue of the Virgin Mary with the baby Jesus in her arms? Did you ever wonder where this image came from? If you would sometime go to Israel with me, I would take you to Ashkelon, one of the cities of the Philistines, and I would show you a statue of Isis, the Egyptian deity, holding the child-god Horis in her arms. These representations were from centuries before Jesus, but it looks just like a statue you might expect to see of Mary and the baby Jesus. If I did not tell you any different you would think that is exactly who it is. And, this is not an isolated example. I don’t know how this fits into your theology, but I would not like to be taught that a picture or statue of a pagan god holding a baby god is supposed to be Mary and Jesus.

Another pagan concept that found its way into the Church was Saturnalia. You probably have never heard of it, but let me describe it to you and see if it doesn’t ring a bell. It was a happy period when freedom and equality reigned. Violence and oppression were unknown during this celebration. During this period, all public business ceased. Masters and slaves changed places. This was a time of feasting, merry-making, and exchanging of gifts. This festival was celebrated from about December 17th until the 23rd. (I hope it doesn’t shock you to learn that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25th.) There is not one verse in the Bible about Christmas. Where did we get the word “Easter”? Did you ever hear of the Ashtaroth, the fertility goddesses mentioned in the Bible? The Hellenization of Ashtaroth Ishtar is transliterated into English as Easter. Have you ever wondered about the Easter egg and the Easter bunny and all of the other concepts and ideas connected to this festival? Where did they come from? Would it surprise you to find out that this is another pagan custom that was brought into the Church? By the way, the only place the word “Easter” is found in the Bible is in Acts 12:4, and it can only be found in the King James Version or versions based on it. When we look at the Greek text we see the word pascha, which is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word pesakh, which should be translated as “Passover”. If you want to read about Ashteroth and get God’s view on the subject, read Judges 2:13; 10:6; I Samuel 7:3-4; and 12:10.

From this quagmire of pagan beliefs, with little or no understanding of biblical truths, emerged a religious organization that ultimately resulted (sometime around the middle of the 7th century) in the Roman Catholic Church. In CE 1050 the first major factionalization resulted in a split between the church to the east and the church to the west that became known as the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church. These two organizations continued until 1517, when Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic priest, became disgusted with the abuses and the heresy in the church, and he nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. He had no intention of starting a new church, but only wanted to halt the corruption within the church. His primary target was the misuse of indulgences (pardon for some of the penalty of sin). An example of this can be seen in the story about Tetzel, a Dominican monk. Tetzel was a high-pressure salesman who was peddling indulgences in an unusually scandalous manner. In his sales pitch he said, “The moment you hear your money drop into the box the soul of your mother will jump out of purgatory.” It was this kind of abuse that prompted Luther to speak out. As a result of his actions, he was excommunicated.

In 1534, Henry the VIII, King of England, had a small problem: how to get rid of his wife so he could marry another. In order to do that, he had to get an annulment of his first marriage from the Pope. The Pope wouldn't give it, so Henry severed all ties with the Roman Catholic Church and refused to recognize the authority of the Pope. This marked the beginning of the Anglican Church in England, which was essentially structured along the lines of the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglican Church remains as the state church of England. From the Anglican Church we have the Episcopalian Church, and then the Methodist Episcopal, followed by the Methodist Church with John Wesley.

All of the various denominations have come forth from the Protestant Reformation which began with Martin Luther in 1534. We can trace their development. We know the names of the individuals who were involved: their basic doctrines, why they thought what they thought and believed what they believed. It is all a matter of documented, recorded fact. Have you ever wondered why there is a Northern Baptist and a Southern Baptist Church? They were united until May 1845, when the Southern Baptist Convention was organized. The acting board of foreign missions of the Baptists was located in Boston and was heavily influenced by the abolition movement. There was bitter debate among the board members over the issue of slavery. In the early 1840’s it became evident that this board would not accept slave holders as missionaries. The question of missionaries and missionary money was the immediate cause of the split.

The end result of all these various arguments and debates is over 400 different denominations with each one saying, “Lo, here’s Christ.” This has created utter confusion. As unbelievable as it might seem, there has never been an attempt on the part of religious leaders to go back behind Protestantism, back of Catholicism and Constantine, and go all the way back to our historical roots in the 1st century. I don’t know about you, but I am not protesting anything, except ignorance. So, I am not interested in being a Protestant. I am not interested in being a Catholic. I want to be part of a living, dynamic, organism that operates in power and with meaning.

I want to emphasize something before you misunderstand what I am talking about. Restoration is never going to be accomplished on a denominational level. It can only happen on an individual basis. If you are in the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, or whatever denomination, restoration can happen. It will happen as there is an increased hunger and desire on the part of God’s people for true factual information. It will happen as individuals begin to ask questions about their religious beliefs and test them against linguistic, cultural, and historical facts. The good news is that it is probably already happening to you.

We are beginning to see individuals, groups, and even congregations coming together with the goal of becoming a living, dynamic, organism as described in the Biblical text. In order to do this, we have to lay aside all of our denominational concepts and go back of Protestantism, back of Catholicism, back of gentile theology, right back to the historical situation in the 1st century. There, we find a Jewish body of believers operating in a dimension unknown in our churches today. To put it simply, it is time that we begin doing Bible things in Bible ways, and in order to do that we must come to grips with the fact that this 1st century Jewish body of believers was structured on the exact pattern of the 1st century synagogue.

For example, we see Jesus walking on the shore of the Sea of Galilee and he says to Peter, James, and John, “Come, follow me and I’ll make you fishers of men.” He selects them and others as his twelve “apostles.” Where did he get that idea? Was it just some brilliant stroke of genius that he came up with as the divine son of God? What was an apostle, and are there supposed to be apostles in the Church today?

In the 6th chapter of Acts, the believers deem it necessary to select out from among them the seven men who are to be called deacons. Where did they get that idea? Was this another brilliant stroke of religious genius? Was it divine inspiration (By the way, did you know why Nicolas is called a proselyte and not a Christian?) What is a deacon and what is he or she supposed to be doing? We just know that they are supposed to serve on the board, pass the offering plate, and help pass out the Lord’s Supper. But what did the deacons of that Jewish body of believers do?

The Apostle Paul admonishes Timothy to go around and ordain elders in every congregation. Where did elders come from and what were they supposed to do? We see in the Bible that there are elders, pastors, presbyters, bishops, overseers, and rulers. The sad fact is that we just do not even know who these various functionaries are, much less what they are supposed to be doing.

What about the synagogue? Do you know anything about it? How was it organized? Did you know there was a group in the synagogue who were called elders, and another group called deacons? They also had apostles and teachers. Would it come as a surprise to you to find out that there is not a single thing that the early fellowship of believers did that was original with them, that they had not done before? To learn the answers to these and other questions, we are re-recording two of our series, “Historical Roots” and “The Organizational Structure of the First Century Community of God”, which will be available for you soon in Audio CD’s.

Giving Thanks - A Way of Life

The Thanksgiving holiday creates many images for us, from Pilgrims and Indians sitting down together at a table and giving thanks to God to football games and colorful parades. In essence, the holiday is a special time for family togetherness, which provides an opportunity for expressing gratitude to God for His goodness and blessings.

By Brad H. Young

The Thanksgiving holiday creates many images for us, from Pilgrims and Indians sitting down together at a table and giving thanks to God to football games and colorful parades. In essence, the holiday is a special time for family togetherness, which provides an opportunity for expressing gratitude to God for His goodness and blessings.

However, it is often forgotten that in the daily life of Jesus and His disciples, thanksgiving and blessing were an integral part of their everyday experience and customary practice. Reflected both in early Jewish literature and in the daily liturgy of the synagogue from Bible times to modern, it is a fact that the Jewish people have made giving thanks a significant part of every aspect of daily life.

Not only is the concept of blessing and giving thanks reflected in the Gospel story of the life of Jesus, but it is also clearly seen in the Pauline Epistles. Here we will examine the Jewish sources and the New Testament evidence in order to gain deeper insights into the early Jewish approach to giving thanks.

The Bible was the source book of Judaism in the time of Jesus, The precepts and lifestyle taught in the sacred pages of the Scriptures and their interpretation by the Jewish sages form the basis of Jewish life and practice. The Jewish people are people of the Book. The five Books of Moses were carefully examined in order to understand the way of life which God desired from His people. Not surprisingly, the Jewish people developed an approach to life which emphasized God’s Lordship and sovereignty over all that He created. They emphasized God’s goodness and His genuine concern for each individual who was created to dwell in the world designed by God for man’s enjoyment and fulfillment.

The rabbis viewed all men as stewards of God’s benevolence. Man was created in God’s image. He was given responsibility to obey God in God’s domain and to care for the beautiful world which had been made for him by God. The foundation of the Jewish understanding of thanksgiving and blessing was formed upon the belief in God’s goodness and His creation. The people were taught to give thanks to God for His goodness. In fact, the sages developed a radical approach to life in which a person blesses God and gives thanks for all the benefit which he receives from God’s creation. Hence at every meal a person must give thanks to God for His provision. The written word itself provided the basis for this approach to God’s provision.

In the Torah we read, “You shall eat and be full, and you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land he has given you” (Deuteronomy 8:10). This verse provides the basis of the Jewish concept of giving thanks to God in the form of a blessing for a meal. The phrase, “and you shall bless the LORD your God,” was understood in part as a way of giving thanks to God for His goodness to man. Note the fact that one blesses the LORD Himself and not any material object. In reality, the concept of blessing goes much deeper than mere praise, because in essence it is a full recognition of God’s Lordship and sovereignty. In fact, you could say that you are actually acknowledging the Kingdom of God, His rule and reign as Sovereign Lord of His creation. Often it has been asked: How can I as a human being bless God? The Hebrew term barach in this context (Deut. 8:10) does not mean provide a blessing but rather to worship Him by acknowledging His Kingdom and His authority which also influence your conduct in daily life.

The Hebrew theology of blessing recognizes the innate good in God’s creation. Unlike the Gnostic or Greek religions which often viewed the material universe as being inherently evil, the Jewish version of creation in Genesis proclaims that God made the world and that it is good. The failure to bless God for benefit received from the world is to deny His goodness and His authority over all that He created. The Jewish people have developed blessings to be recited in praise of God for specific occasions. When one eats bread he says, “Blessed art thou O Lord, King of the Universe who brings forth bread from the earth.” God created the world in which man received this benefit. An equally suitable blessing is recited over wine, “Blessed art thou O Lord, King of the Universe who brings forth fruit from the vine.” Such blessings are used during meals, and certainly Jesus would have employed these blessings with His disciples, not only during the Passover but as a daily practice on many occasions. A special blessing can be recited when one comes to a place where God has worked a miracle, when one sees a King, or even when one performs his natural body functions. In fact, one tractate of the Jewish oral tradition, Berachot in the Mishnah, is dedicated to the subject of blessings. Both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmuds give extensive commentary to this tractate of the Mishnah. The rabbis developed a theology of blessing God for every aspect of man’s life. Each person is required to acknowledge God’s sovereignty and to live in a God-consciousness no matter what his line of work may be.

The Jewish sages based their theology of thanksgiving to God upon Psalm 24:1. In an illuminating passage from the Talmud we read, “To enjoy anything of this world without a blessing of thanks is like making personal use of things consecrated to heaven, since it says ‘The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof’ (Ps. 24:1)” (b. Ber. 35a). Interestingly, another Jewish teacher, who studied under the eminent Rabban Gamaliel, also employs this passage from Psalm 24:1 when he discusses the pastoral problem of food and drink in the mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles in Corinth. With some stipulations, Paul gives the advice to accept what is set before you with thanks, because, ‘The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof’ (I Cor. 10:26). It would be difficult to deny that Paul’s Jewish upbringing and his study of the Scripture influenced his choice of proof text and his approach to the issue at hand. The earth is the LORD’s and hence, whenever a person benefits in any way from God’s created world, he must give thanks and praise to God who made it.

Strangely enough, in Christian practice, often the custom at mealtime has been to ask God “to bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies.” This phrase in prayer has been employed in many religious contexts but actually represents a basic misunderstanding of blessing. One does not bless the object. No, one blesses the source of all creation – the Lord Himself who made it. The mistake of blessing objects instead of God who gives all good things in this world is probably a result, not only of a misunderstanding of the Jewish custom in Jesus’ time, but also of a wrong reading of the Gospels. Often we read about how Jesus blessed, broke, and gave bread to His disciples. In the miracle of the multiplication or in the Last Supper, He blesses, breaks, and gives. The image of blessing is familiar in Jewish sources. The famous R. Akiva taught, “A man is forbidden to taste anything before saying a blessing over it” (b. Ber. 35a). Before eating, Jesus would say a blessing. Jewish readers would have understood that the blessing was said in praise to God for the food. Then the bread was broken and given to the disciples. At an early period, the idea of blessing the food developed. Interestingly, as was pointed out to me by David Flusser, in a very important Greek manuscript of Luke 9:16 we find a clear reference to the original wording of this text, which describes how Jesus blessed God for the food.

The usual version of the saying from Luke 9:16 reads, “And He took the five loaves and the two fish, looking up to heaven, He blessed them and broke them…” (Luke 9:16, NAS). From the translation, “He blessed them,” many have adopted the practice of blessing the food before a meal. However, in a number of very important New Testament manuscripts, including the uncial Codex Bezae, we discover a significant textual variant. Instead of blessing “them,” these texts insert a preposition before the direct object, “them,” – so that the text reads, “he said a blessing over them.” In other words, the better Greek manuscripts preserve the image of the original – Jewish practice of giving thanks to God who provides the food. Jesus said a blessing to God over the food. This makes the miracle of Jesus that much more meaningful. He gave thanks to God for His provision, and the five loaves and the two fish were miraculously multiplied to feed the five thousand. Even the leftovers of the twelve baskets far exceeded the small meal given to Jesus. The Jewish custom of blessing God before tasting anything demonstrated Jesus’ approach to life, which was based upon the Jewish understanding of God’s goodness and grace. One may bless his children and give them to the Lord for His service. He may even dedicate possessions or other material assets for the Kingdom of God. Nonetheless, the blessing of food is based upon a misunderstanding of the New Testament. God who provided good provision to man should be blessed for His benevolence. God is the source of everything. As study will clearly demonstrate, the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament reflect the early Jewish practice of reciting a blessing in praise and honor of God for His unmerited favor.

Why should God be blessed? The foundation of ancient Jewish thought and faith is “Hear O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:14). The acknowledgment of the “Hear O Israel” affirmation of faith and commitment was understood as man’s total denial of other gods and his acceptance of God’s authority. God’s reign and Lordship is manifested when men acknowledge that, indeed, He alone is God. He created this world and the source of all of life comes from Him. The sanctity of life which God has given is often obscured by the mundane worries and concerns which can eclipse each person’s God-consciousness. True faith acknowledges God’s presence in every aspect of his life. Giving God praise and blessing for all benefit derived from His creation is a way that we sanctify life and receive the kingdom into all parts of our daily experience, both for our sometimes dreary routines as well as for our great spiritual highs. Awareness of God’s grace and presence gives deeper meaning to the mystery of life. During this Thanksgiving season, it is important to focus upon God’s Kingdom as we remember His gracious care and provision in the past, accept His power and authority in the present, and look to His goodness and grace in the future. But the true spirit of Thanksgiving can only be realized when we truly discover the sanctity of life by blessing the LORD Himself, as we acknowledge His sovereignty in each aspect of our lives, during every season of the year and at all times day by day.

Who Is Jesus? Part II

In Part I of our article, “Who Is Jesus?,” the question was asked, “Why was it necessary for God to assume human form and flesh in order to effect redemption?”

It is important to keep in mind that the Bible is primarily a Hebrew document and that Jesus, as Yeshuat Elohim, in the flesh, was born into and a product of Hebrew thought and teachings.

By Roy B. Blizzard

In Part I of our article, “Who Is Jesus?,” the question was asked, “Why was it necessary for God to assume human form and flesh in order to effect redemption?”

It is important to keep in mind that the Bible is primarily a Hebrew document and that Jesus, as Yeshuat Elohim, in the flesh, was born into and a product of Hebrew thought and teachings. In Part II, we want to note the difference in Hebrew thought between one’s having his part in the Olam Haba, the world to come, i.e., going to heaven, and in being saved. According to Jewish thought and teachings, the righteous of all nations would have their part in the Olam Haba, i.e., heaven, according to the covenant God made with Noah. This covenant consists of seven basic laws.

To the Gentiles who were not prepared to enter the fold of Judaism, a moral code, known as the seven commandments of the sons of Noah, was offered. It consisted of the precepts: “The practice of equity, prohibitions against blaspheming the Name, idolatry, immorality, bloodshed, robbery, and devouring a limb torn from a live animal” (Sanhedrin 56a). By righteous conduct, based upon these fundamental laws, they would earn the divine approval (Everyman’s Talmud, page 65).

Having one’s part in the world to come – getting to go to heaven – and being saved are not one and the same thing.

Back to our question: Why did Jesus come? What did God accomplish as Yeshuat Elohim, the second Adam?" What does it mean to be “saved”?

What about Adam? Adam, damut, and Adamah all are from the same Hebrew root, DMH or DMY. In Hebrew, every word has a root from which it derives its meaning. Every word that shares the same root in common shares something of the meaning of the common root. “The Lord God formed Adam from the afar of the Adama and He breathed into his nostrils that portion of Himself, and man became a thing alive.” Adam, damut, and Adamah share the root dam. In Hebrew, dam is blood. Dictionaries usually show the definition of Adam as “red earth,” sometimes as “red man.” How do we derive “red”? Note the word Edom. The Edomites were descendants of Esau and were called Edomites because Esau not only had reddish skin but sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage, or lentil soup, which is reddish in color. In Hebrew, lipstick is Aduma because it is also red. All are from the same Hebrew root, meaning red as in blood. As for Adam, the first letter, the Hebrew letter aleph, is frequently used as an abbreviation for Elohim, as it is the first Hebrew letter in the word Elohim. We can see then that Adam could be translated as the blood of God. Damut means likeness, or in this instance, an exact duplication in kind. When God created Adam in His damut, he made Adam exactly what He was. As such, Adam was neither male nor female, but both. That is why later, God caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took one of Adam’s tzela’ot, here meaning side, but in other parts of the biblical text translated as cell, or cage. Never is it translated as rib. Interestingly, this was all written long before we ever knew that each cell in the human body contains all the necessary ingredients to make an exact duplication of us in kind. We call all such clones. All God would have needed was one single cell. He could have emphasized on the one hand the masculine and on the other the feminine. The two would have been equal to one another as well as equal to God. That is established further in Genesis when God said, “For this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and the two be glued, (Hebrew = DBK) back together so that the two, the male aspect and the female aspect, can again become one so as to be on this earth the reflection of the totality of all that God is.” In Jewish literature, i.e., the Talmud, as well as many other writings, the unmarried man, or person, is not considered as a whole person. Only in the bonds of matrimony can the two, the male and female aspects of deity, be joined together in oneness to be the reflection of the totality of all that God is here on this earth.

“And the Lord God, YHWH Elohim, formed Adam from afar, dust, or minute particle.” Afar can mean a minute particle of something. Again, this was written before we knew that all matter was formed out of minute particles that we call atoms. “And the Lord God formed Adam from the minute particles of the Adamah.” Adamah, often translated “dust,” can be seen as composed of the root dam; the aleph for elohim at the beginning and, the He, for YHWH, at the end. Perhaps a better reading for Gen 2:7 would be “and YHWH Elohim (the covenant/creative diety) formed Adam from the minute particles of the totality of all that God is, and breathed into his nostrils that portion of himself and Adam became a thing just like God.”

However, something happened. That Godness was corrupted by Adam’s sin. When Adam sinned something must have happened to the blood, that which had come to man from God, for now it becomes an immutable law that “the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die.” When does death come? Only when the life-giving blood ceases to flow through the veins to nourish the tissues and carry off waste products. “Life is in the blood.” With sin also comes God’s means of atonement, “Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin.”

Note that Jesus is called “the second Adam,” the second blood of God. In that, there is supreme importance. God is the sum and total of all of His parts, and we best understand God by looking at His names that reflect things that God is doing, which, in turn, helps us understand the nature of God. God is what He is doing. One of the names for God is Yeshuat Elohim. “And all flesh shall see God redeeming.” Again, however, the question arises of the necessity of God becoming flesh. One of the principal characteristics of the Hebrew language is parallelisms, which only means saying the same thing over again several different ways, but all of which are co-equal. The Greek mind has great difficulty understanding the synonyms, the parallelisms of Hebrew, as does the Western mind. However, these characteristics must be kept in mind before this can be understood.

In the creation of Adam, God breathed into Adam that portion of himself, namely dam, and man became a thing alive. It was not literally that blood was breathed into Adam’s nostrils, but blood is the vehicle through which that spark of life is carried to all of the cells and tissues. This is why God repeats over and over that “life is in the blood.” Again, without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin. Notice also that the blood of bulls and goats, or of animals or of beasts of the field, could not take away sin because it was not incorruptible blood. It was not the blood of God. God said, “I, I myself am going to seek and save.” (Eze. 34) How could He do this if “without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin”? Remember…Jesus never tried to hide His deity.

In John 5:18-21, Jesus says, “I assure you, I most solemnly tell you that the person whose ears are “open” to my words, who listens to my message, and believes and trusts in and clings to and relies upon Him who sent me has eternal life and does not come unto judgment but has already passed out of death unto life. Believe me when I tell you the time is coming and is now here when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear it shall live. For even as the Father has life in himself and is self-existent so He is given to the Son to have life In himself and be self-existent and has given Him authority and granted Him power to execute judgment because He is a Son of Man.” This refers to Daniel 7:13-14, in which the Son of Man is the one who is given authority to judge the nations, to judge the kingdom, and Jesus is claiming that for himself.

Colossians 1:13, “The Father has delivered and drawn us to Himself out of the control and the dominion of darkness and has transferred us into the kingdom of the son of His love in whom we have our redemption through His blood, which means the forgiveness of our sins. He is the exact likeness of the unseen God, the visible representation of the invisible, the firstborn of all creation.” The Father has already delivered us unto Himself and transferred us out of the control of darkness, or the forces of this world. Paul said, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” If we could only get this, if we really understood what God has done for us; we would not even be bound by the natural laws that govern the operation of this world. That is what Yeshua meant. When Peter and John went into the temple and saw the man there crippled and begging alms, they said, “Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have, I give unto you; take up your bed and walk,” and the man took up his bed and walked. God provided this, accomplished this, for his children. In the person of Yeshua menatzeret, (Yeshua of Nazareth), and He said all of that happened because, verse 14, “…we have our redemption through His blood.” “Know ye not that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold…but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and with spot…” (1 Peter 1:18-19).

How then is it possible that Jesus could have been born of human flesh and made to be a partaker of human flesh and yet not a partaker of man’s corruptible blood? The answer, of course, is in His divine birth; not a virgin birth, but divine birth. A virgin birth, in science, is called “parthenogenesis.” It means a resultant offspring from the female mother without the introduction of male sperm. We are able in the laboratory, in lower forms of life, to induce the mitotic, or the cellular division of the female egg with the introduction of an electrical shock so that the resultant offspring is what we call a parthenogenic birth. Nowhere in the Bible do we have an indication of that insofar as the birth of Jesus was concerned. Instead of stating that it was a virgin birth, the Bible says simply that Mary was a virgin, and “that which was conceived in her womb was conceived after the Holy Spirit had come upon her.” The Bible simply says that Mary was a virgin and that the conception did not take place until the Holy Spirit had come upon her.

This is of the utmost importance because, in the human of the species, the blood that develops within the fetus begins to develop after the introduction of the male sperm, or the male element, and from the moment of conception, the fetus begins to form its own independent blood supply. Throughout the whole course of pregnancy, there is never any direct interchange of blood between the mother and the fetus. All of the nourishment and the carrying off of waste products is done through the process of osmosis. By the ninth week, the fetus has formed its own independent blood supply. The heart is about the size of a pea and has four little valves with tiny, veil-like pumps that are pumping the blood through myriads of little thread-like veins and arteries. From the moment of conception throughout the entire course of pregnancy, there is no direct interchange of blood between the mother and the fetus. That is the reason why it necessitated, a divine birth and God taking on the form of human flesh because only divine blood, incorruptible blood, could atone for sin.

Now the big question. Does that mean that everybody has to accept Jesus as the Messiah in order to be “saved”? Since “saved” does not have anything necessarily to do with getting to go to heaven, the question would be better stated, does that mean that everyone has to accept Jesus in order to go to heaven? If the righteous Gentile is able to have his part in the world to come according to the seven laws of Noah, he does not even have to be fully knowledgeable about God. “Saved” is for this world. However, the Bible says that we are saved by the shedding of blood, by the blood of Jesus, His incorruptible blood, and Jesus said, “I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life, and no man comes to the Father but by Me.”

Many other passages indicate the same, but one factor we fail to take into consideration is that Jesus is God. He was the pre-existent Messiah, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, and that was an accomplished fact in the mind of God from the beginning so that no man ever came to God except by virtue of what God did in His redemptive act as Yeshuat Elohim. Not Abel, not Enoch, not Elijah, not anybody. Jesus was “the Lamb of God that was slain from the foundations of the world.” Yet…there comes that moment in which that which is there as an established fact in the mind of God from the beginning becomes a historical reality in the space-time continuum “I am the way, I am the Truth, I am the life….” No man ever “came to the Father except by virtue of what God did in His redemptive act as Yeshuat Elohim.” That is the reason why He had to take on the form of human flesh, be a partaker of human flesh, yet not a partaker of man’s corruptible blood because only incorruptible blood could atone ultimately for sin. In this we see, not just theologically, but scientifically how it could be accomplished.

Seeing it from this perspective, I am suddenly overwhelmed with the grandeur of God, with the glory of God, that could have conceived and designed such a grand and magnificent plan for my ultimate reconciliation, from the very beginning. Overwhelmed by how, from the very beginning, He marvelously formed the female of the species that she could ultimately be the vehicle through whom redemption could become an established fact in the space-time continuum.

2 Corinthians 3:18, “And all of us, as with unveiled face, because we continued to behold in the word of God as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are constantly being transfigured into His very own image in ever increasing splendor and from one degree of glory to the other for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” First, we are told that all of us are in the process of being transfigured or transformed into His image and His likeness. Again, 2 Corinthians 4:4, “the god of this world” is God, who has blinded the unbeliever’s eyes, preventing them from seeing the illuminating light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, the Messiah, who is the “image and the likeness of God.” This is a reference back to Genesis 1:27, “Let us make Adam in our image and our likeness.”

In 1 Corinthians 15:45, “the first Adam became a thing alive,” but forfeited his heritage; however, “the last Adam became a life-giving spirit restoring the dead to life.” Who was this second Adam? In the book, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, by Professor David Flusser of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, on page 59, the identification of the last Adam is made clear. “To sum up, the celestial biography found in the New Testament consists entirely of Jewish motifs: Jesus the Messiah had existed before the creation of the world; he entered the world, or even created it; He became flesh…and then brought about redemption; He is the Messiah, the bar Enash, the Last Adam; and He atones for sin just like those who atoned for the sins of Israel and then comes back to life.” These are all Jewish ideas and concepts.

I am much concerned that the Jews have allowed the Christians to rob them of their Jewish Jesus. All of this is totally Jewish, but when the western church came in with their misunderstandings and misinterpretations, not only were they confused but, in turn, confused those from whom these ideas and concepts had originally flowed.

The second point here is that, “…for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” Note that Lord and Spirit are used interchangeably. Kurios is also known as pneuma. Again, this is that Jewish influence of synonymous parallelisms, the one being equal to the other. Colossians 3:10; “And have clothed yourself with a new spiritual self which is ever in the process of being renewed and remolded into fuller and more perfect knowledge upon knowledge after the image of Him who created it.” The cross reference is again back to Genesis 1:26-27, a reference to the pre-existent Messiah. 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake, He made Christ to be sin who knew no sin so that in Him we might be viewed as the righteousness of God.” We are righteous not because of what we are but because of what God is. That is what one of the names of God is, mekadesh, YHWH mekadesh, the One who sanctifies me, or causes me to be righteous. Romans 3:21, further amplifies this, “But now the righteousness of God has been revealed independently and altogether apart from law, although actually is attested by law and the prophets, namely, the righteousness of God which comes by the faith of Jesus unto all….” It is the righteousness of God which comes as a result of the redemptive act that God performed in the person of Yeshuat Elohim. We are declared to be righteous, not because of what we are but because of what He is.

What is the significance of this? Galatians 2:16, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Just so we do not misunderstand Paul, we must remember that Paul was by his own words “a Pharisee of the Pharisees and a Hebrew of the Hebrews” and that everything he is talking about is Jewish and has to do with Jewish things. Paul is not putting down the law. Paul was very observant of the law, so observant that he even took Timothy and circumcised him so that he could take Timothy with him to places where a non-circumcised person was not allowed. However, in Paul’s day, there were many different sects of the Jews that we have been able to identify, and each had some different concept. One particular sect was called Judaizers, who believed that no one could be saved or have their part in the world to come except by keeping the law, and that was contrary to the main stream of Jewish thought. Paul said a person would not be saved by observing the law, but that salvation is something God gave to man out of the abundance of His grace. Salvation is by grace. It is all grace. God did it by grace from the very beginning and there is not anything that any man anywhere on the face of God’s earth can do to earn it. We are not declared to be righteous by observing or keeping the law, but we are declared to be righteous by virtue of what God did for us when we did not deserve it. We are made righteous by the faithfulness of Yeshuat Elohim, who accomplished for us what we could not do for ourselves. I become what I am not because of what I am but because of what He is, and I am declared to be righteous by faith, or faithfulness. In Hebrew faith means faithfulness. Faith is action! I am declared to be righteous by the virtue of what happened in the redemptive act of God as of Yeshuat Elohim.

What is very important in all of this can be found in Ephesians 3:16 ff

“May He grant you out of the rich treasury of His glory to be strengthened and re-enforced with mighty power in the inner man, by the Holy Spirit himself indwelling your innermost being and personality. May Christ through faith actually dwell, settle down, abide, and make his permanent home in your hearts. May you be rooted deep in love and founded securely on love, that you may have the power and be strong to apprehend and grasp with all the saints, God's devoted people, what is the breadth and the length and the depth, that you may really come to know practically through experience for yourself the love of Christ which far surpasses mere knowledge without experience, that you may be filled through all your being unto all the fullness of God, that is that you may have the richest measure of the divine presence and become a body wholly filled and flooded with God himself.”

That is the capacity that man has as a child of God.

Again, notice the different designations, Spirit, Christ, God. We keep trying to see these as different entities. Some have questions about the Scriptures that enumerate “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit,” or, as in Oneness, who believe that baptism is only in the name of Jesus. What the Bible does say is, “Go baptize in the name of Yeshua haMashiach,” Jesus the Christ, or the Messiah, the anointed one. But if there is only one God, who is the Father? God. Who is the Holy Spirit? God. Who Is the Son? God. This is just Hebrew synonymous parallelisms. Go out and do this in the name of the totality of all that God is. The emphasis is not even upon Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Father, Son, Holy Spirit, but upon the word “name.” Why? Because “name” signifies authority. Go out in the name of the One who is the King of Kings, who lives within, whom I serve, and who empowers me as His messenger to go out and literally be kingdom in this world.

The principal message that Jesus proclaimed was kingdom. When His disciples came and asked Him to teach them to pray, Jesus taught them, “Our Father which inhabits the heavenlies, holy be your name. Let your kingdom go, be spread, over all the earth in such a way that God will begin to rule and reign in more and more lives, so that men and women will begin to do here on earth the will of the Father, just as it is being done in heaven.” That is what God wants to do – reign in our lives, empower our lives. God wants to fill us in order that we might be whole, not just that we might be whole, but that our wholeness will bring others to wholeness.

What is the purpose of our existence? Why are we here? That we might be the reflection of the one who lives and dwells within us. We have missed the point and gone so far afield that Christianity is reduced to Sunday and Wednesday church. Much of what we do must certainly seem to be odd to God when He said to go, and to take the authority over the devil and see him flee, and to lay our hands on the sick and see them recover and say to them, ““The kingdom of God has come upon you.” That is, you have seen God burst through this space-time continuum and He has met you at the very point of your human need. Go and minister to those that are sick, those that are hungry, those that are naked, those that are homeless, those that are in prison. The action for the man and woman of God is out there. God is more concerned with what we do with our fellowman, and the relationship we have with our fellowman, than He is about our relationship vertically with HIM. It may start in your head, but it ends in your heart.

What was the purpose in Jesus’ coming? That we might be made whole. And the purpose in our existence, our being, our going out to minister? That man might be made whole. Can man have his part in the world to come without a knowledge of Jesus? Man can have a part in the world to come even without very much of an understanding of God, but we have to understand that biblical faith is not a religion of tomorrow, not an “otherworldly” religion, but a religion of today. I need, for today, all of God that there is, everything that I can know about God, everything I can understand about God, in order that not just I can be made whole, but that I can be an instrument or a vehicle through whom God works to bring others into wholeness.

There is so much, so many questions, so many answers, yet, our prayer must be that the Spirit of God quickens our minds and understanding and helps us to receive those answers that have not yet become evident, that the Spirit of God will lead us into truth. Above all it should be our heart’s desire that we might come before God with a renewed resolve to be everything that we have the capacity to be with God in us, and that we focus our attention out there to a world that is hurting, a world that is lost, to a world that needs God. Rather than arguing and discussing, fussing, rather than contending and factionalizing the family of God, that we might focus not on our differences, but on that which we have in common, namely, that there is a God in heaven who loves and who cares and who wants to see His people whole. And that we might become an instrument through which God works to effect wholeness in this world, today, in the now. That the anointing of the Spirit of God will rest upon us all; dwell within us all, and flow through us all, to effect wholeness, by the power of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who lives within us and whom we serve.

This two-part article is presented basically as it was delivered, in lecture form, without supportive materials, references, footnotes, etc. However, documentation for statements made in this article can be found in The Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing; Bereishis, Artscroll Series, Volume 1 Mesorah Publishing; Everyman’s Talmud, Schocken Books; Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, Hendrickson Publishing; and Jastrow’s Dictionary Judaica.