Roy B. Blizzard's Blog, page 9

Matthew 5:5

Continuing with our study of the Beatitudes, the third Beatitude is Matthew 5:5. Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth. From our past study, we recall that each Beatitude is a doublet and a truism.

By Roy B. Blizzard

Continuing with our study of the Beatitudes, the third Beatitude is Matthew 5:5.

Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.

From our past study, we recall that each Beatitude is a doublet and a truism. So, the passage should be translated: Blessed are the meek for they inherit the earth.

But the question is – Who are the meek? If you took the time to look, you undoubtedly found that this passage is an exact quote from Psalm 37: 10-11. Keeping in mind Jesus is hinting back to that Psalm 37, the answer to our question, Who are the meek? will perhaps be found in the body of the Psalm.

Psalm 37 mentions those who will ultimately inherit the earth or posses the land in verse 9 those that wait on the Lord shall inherit the land.

Verse 9: "For evildoers shall be cut off; But those who wait on the LORD, They shall inherit the earth."
In verse 11: the humble (same as poor in spirit) shall inherit the land.
In verse 21-22, it reads: "The wicked borroweth and payeth not, but the righteous dealeth graciously and giveth. For such as are blessed of Him shall inherit the land."
In verse 29: the righteous shall inherit the land…
In verse 34: those who "wait on the Lord and keep His way will inherit the land."

Notice the many synonyms that interpret for us the meaning of the word meek.

It is interesting, but in the Hebrew text the word meek is the same as the word humble and is synonymous with the word righteous.

Notice in verse 21 that it is the righteous who shall inherit the land and what defines or determines their righteousness is that they deal gracious and give. The word righteous is our word Tzadik, righteousness is Tzedakah, which we have mentioned before is the foundation of Biblical faith. It has little to do with what one does upward towards God and everything to do with what one does outwardly towards his fellow man.

The second part of the Beatitude, i.e., inherit the land, is used as we have seen several times here in Psalms 37, but it is also used in Psalms 25:13 relative to the man who fears the Lord, his seed shall inherit the land.

[13] He himself shall dwell in prosperity, And his descendants shall inherit the earth.

In Isaiah 60:21a, it says, "Thy people shall be all righteous and they shall inherit the land forever."

Remember in Luke 18:18, the story of the certain ruler who came to Jesus and asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" He is asking what must I do to posses the land? What must I do to inherit the earth? These terms are all synonymous. We note that in Psalm 37, David talks of the humble and the righteous, and how blessed they are under God.

Jesus is essentially saying, "Now, I too say how blessed are these righteous people for they are the ones who receive eternal life in the world to come."

Matthew 5:4, The Beatitudes, Study 2

We are continuing in our passage in translation with our study of the Beatitudes and the Beatitude for this week is Matthew 5:4.

By Roy B. Blizzard

We are continuing in our passage in translation with our study of the Beatitudes and the Beatitude for this week is Matthew 5:4

Matthew 5:4 – KJV

[4] Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.

Translation

Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted.

Remember from last week that we said that the Beatitudes were truisms and should be understood in the present tense. Additionally, they are doublets and hint back at something that had already been said or written. The first part of this Beatitude is a hinting back at Isaiah 61:1-3. This is the passage, you will remember, Jesus quoted at Nazareth.

Isaiah 61:1-3 – KJV

[1] "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; [2] To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, [3] To console those who mourn in Zion, To give them beauty for ashes, The oil of joy for mourning, The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; That they may be called trees of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified."

Translation

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because the Lord hath anointed Me to bring good tidings unto the humble. He hath sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the eyes that are to them that are bound, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s good pleasure and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn, to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them a garland for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning…

The word is also found in Isaiah 54:11 – a passage to which the second part of the doublet refers.

Isaiah 54:11 – KJV

[11] "O you afflicted one, Tossed with tempest, and not comforted, Behold, I will lay your stones with colorful gems, And lay your foundations with sapphires."

Translation

Oh thou afflicted tossed with tempest and not comforted, Behold, I will set thy stones in far colors…

You should read the rest of this passage in Isaiah 54 and notice the allegory – setting the stones in far colors, laying the foundations with sapphires, making the pinnacles of rubies, the gates of carbuncles, etc., is all an allegory for comforted.

Isaiah 66:13 – KJV

[13] As one whom his mother comforts, So I will comfort you; And you shall be comforted in Jerusalem."

Translation

As one whom his mother comforted, so will I comfort you and you shall be comforted in Jerusalem."

In other words, when Jesus says, "Blessed are they that mourn, passages such as Isaiah 61 and others explode in their minds. Blessed are the spiritual mourners, those who have thrown away their pride of status and are crying out to God, brokenhearted and in despair.These are the ones God comforts. But what does it mean to be comforted?

Look at Psalms 34:7 "The angel of the LORD encamps all around those who fear Him, And delivers them."

This poor man cried and the Lord heard and saved him out of all his troubles. In other words, mourn, the spiritual mourners, are those brokenhearted who have reached the end of their physical strength and they cry out to God in hopelessness and despair and God comforts them. Comfort is, in this context, a synonym for saved – a synonym for those who are ruled by God.

Now the question is – Did any of you try to find the passages to which this Beatitude was hinting as I suggested last week?

The next Beatitude, "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth," should be very easy for you to find. Take your concordance and see if you can find it and we will deal with this Beatitude next week.

Matthew 5:2-10, The Beatitudes, Study 1

The passage in translation for today is actually going to be the beginning of a series of eight verses from Matthew 5: 2-10. However, we will take them one verse at a time and go into more of an explanation than usual. Theses verses are usually known as the Beatitudes.

By Roy B. Blizzard

The passage in translation for today is actually going to be the beginning of a series of eight verses from Matthew 5: 2-10. However, we will take them one verse at a time and go into more of an explanation than usual. Theses verses are usually known as the Beatitudes.

Beatitude in English means consummate bliss although the word in Greek is makarios, which is a poetic word that translates into English as blessed. It is used some 49 times in the Psalms alone. Many of the bishops and church leaders in the Greek Orthodox Church are named Makarios.

In Hebrew, it is the word ashrey, which can be translated as happy. Perhaps the best definition for a Beatitude is an attitude for kingdom people to be in.

It may come as a surprise to you to learn that these verses that we commonly call the Beatitudes do not mean what they appear to mean on the surface; rather something much more profound. However, in order to understand them, one must understand several things.

First of all, these are all truisms; that is, a proverbial statement that is eternally true. We might say that these truisms are in what we would call the proverbial future, which is actually the present tense. In other words, each one of these statements is eternally true. It was true yesterday. It is true today. It will be true tomorrow.

Let me give you a few examples found in the Proverbs. For example, Proverbs 12:7 is an example of the proverbial future.

The wicked are overthrown and are not but the house of the righteous shall stand. (It should be the wicked are overthrown and are not but the house of the righteous stands.)

Proverbs 12:8

According to one’s intelligence is he commended, but the one who vacillates back and forth is despised.

Proverbs 12:21

There shall no mischief befall the righteous but the wicked are filled with evil.

The Proverbs are actually full of truisms. Further, in order to understand the Proverbs, one must know something about how the Rabbis taught in Jesus’ day. In His day, they used the word pardes, which means an orchard to describe the four levels of instructions that form an acrostic.

Pshat – The first level – was the simple exegesis.
Remez – The second level – meant hinting at. They would hint back at something that had already been said or already was known.
Drash – The third level – was the homiletical exposition.
Sod – The fourth level – represented the secret or hidden meaning.

Jesus is a master at remez. He rarely ever says anything that is original with Him. He is always hinting back at something that had already been said or already written. Because His listeners had the Biblical text committed to memory, all He had to do was use a word or a phrase and there was an immediate understanding on His listeners’ part of the phrase or the passage or the theology at which He was hinting.

Additionally, each Beatitude contains two parts. In each part of the passage, or doublet, we might say Jesus is referring or hinting at an idea. In Matthew 5:3, Jesus says:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

There are many passages in the Biblical text that refer to poor in spirit or wounded in spirit or bruised in spirit; such as, Isaiah 66:2 that refers to the poor and humbled in spirit. In Isaiah 57:15, it refers to the contrite and the humble of spirit. All of these terms are synonymous. As a matter of fact, we find the term "poor in spirit" used by those from the Dead Sea community at Qumran. They refer to themselves as the "poor in spirit folk" and then in abbreviated form just the "poor." It has nothing to do with poverty, but rather the condition of one’s heart. "Poor in spirit" means those who are sorry for their sins, who have repented of their sins, who have turned to God, who love His word and keep His commandments. These are the characteristics of those who make up God’s Kingdom.

You might say how blessed are those who know no other way but God’s way, who follow no other word but His word. These are the people over whom He is ruling.

Before we complete our look at Matthew 5:3, we need to say something about "kingdom of heaven." "Kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" are synonymous. "Kingdom of heaven" is Hebraic and "Kingdom of God" is Greek.

The point is, again, that "kingdom" is not something out in the future. Kingdom is something for the now. There can be no kingdom without a king. There can be no king without a kingdom. Kingdom for Jesus was the people who were a part of His movement, those people over whom God was ruling and who were demonstrating His rule in their life in action.

Again, each one of these Beatitudes is a doublet. Jesus is referring back to statements or passages that are already well known.

Now, those of you with concordances see if you can figure out the passages to which He is hinting when He says, "Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted," and we will take a closer look at it in the next article.

Study Shows Jesus as Rabbi

It is very difficult for us, almost 2,000 years removed from Jesus’ day, to project ourselves back across the centuries of time to a culture and language so totally foreign to the western mind of today. And yet, before we can even begin to understand the magnificent and thrilling words of Jesus, that is exactly what we must do.

By Roy B. Blizzard and David Bivin

The first thing that one must realize is that Jesus was a Jew. This fact should be obvious; however, it is surprising how many Christians are shocked to learn that Jesus was a Jew. And, not just any ordinary Jew. He was a rabbi, a teacher, one learned in the Scriptures and the religious literature of His day, which was considerable.

There is a general consensus in Christian circles that Jesus was unlearned or unschooled. His knowledge was divine and God-given. It is said, even by some scholars, that because Jesus was unschooled, the people of His day were amazed that he had some knowledge of the Scriptures. This misunderstanding is due in part to a statement made in reference to His home, Nazareth: Can there be anything good from Nazareth? (John 1:46) and to certain statements made about Jesus’ disciples:

And they were amazed and marveled, saying one to another ‘Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? (Acts 2:7)’

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and they perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled, and took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus (Acts 42:13).

From the above passages the idea has arisen that Jesus, like His disciples, was basically ignorant and uneducated because He was from Galilee. The implication is that Galilee was “sticksville,” or the “boondocks,” and that the people who lived there were basically ignorant.

This line of thinking is fundamentally in error. The level of learning and education in Galilee exceeded that of Judea in Jesus’ day. Galilee surpassed even Judea in its schools of learning, and most of the famous rabbis of Jesus’ day were from Galilee (Johnanan ben Zakkai, Hanina ben Doda, Abba Yose Holikufri, Zadok, Halaphta, Hananian ben Teradyon.) According to Professor Shmuel Safrai, Hebrew University Professor of Jewish History of the period of the Mishnah and Talmud, not only did the number of 1st century Galilean rabbis known from rabbinic literature exceed the number of Judean rabbis, but even the moral and ethical quality of their teaching excelled that of their Judean counterparts (private communication).

In the New Testament, a great deal of space is given to Jesus’ birth; but then, until His appearance in the Temple at age 12, almost nothing; and from age 12 until He began His public ministry at about the age of 30, again, nothing. What was Jesus doing in His early childhood and in His adolescence? We have a very strong indication from a tractate, or chapter, in the Mishnah, the Jewish “Oral Law.” The passage is as interesting as it is pertinent.

At five years of age, one is ready for the study of the Scripture, at ten years of age one is fit for the study of the Mishnah, at the age of thirteen for bar mitzvah, at the age of fifteen for the study of Talmud, at the age of eighteen for marriage, at the age of twenty for pursuing a vocation, at the age of thirty for entering into one’s full vigor…(Avot 5:2l).

Although this statement cannot be dated with certainty and may come from 70 to 150 years after the time of Jesus, it does, nevertheless, reflect what the Jewish boy in Jesus’ day would have been doing in each stage of his growth and development.

Most Christians know that the synagogue is the Jewish house of prayer and worship. Few Christians are aware that each synagogue usually had its own elementary school, or bet-sefer, and its own school, or bet-midrash. As we think of institutions within the framework of Judaism, it is natural to assume that the synagogue, or house of prayer and worship, would be considered most sacred. However, such is not the case. In Judaism, even to this day the bet-midrash is given more prominence and is considered more sacred than the synagogue.

However, there is one fact that is of the utmost importance for our understanding of the subject at hand, and that is: although scrolls, or books for reading and study, were used, and although the practice of writing was highly developed, writing materials were costly and scarce, and all manuscripts had to be written by hand by scribes trained in this profession. Therefore, learning usually meant memorization by constant repetition. Professor Shmuel Safrai, in his article, “Education and the Study of the Torah,” 945-970 in Volume Two of The Jewish People of the First Century, relates:

Individual and group study of the Bible, repetition of the passages, etc., were often done by chanting them aloud. There is the frequent expression “the chirping of children,” which was heard by people passing close by a synagogue as the children were reciting a verse. Adults too, in individual and in group study, often read aloud; for it was frequently advised not to learn in a whisper, but aloud. This was the only way to overcome the danger of forgetting.

In the eyes of the rabbis, repetition was the key to learning. One who repeats his lesson a hundred times is not like him who repeats it a hundred and one times (Chaggigah 9b).

All kinds of methods were devised to assist the student in memorization. One passage in the Talmud, too lengthy to quote here, tells how even infants were taught to memorize the Hebrew alphabet (Shabbath 104x). In elementary schools the children were instructed in the Hebrew language and in Torah, the Law of Moses.

Lessons took place on all the days of the week including the sabbath when they would, however, read no new material, but repeat earlier lessons. We even find the children going over their lessons on Friday evenings in the synagogue (Safrai: 954).

From these written sources we can say with great certainty what Jesus was doing in His early childhood and adolescence. He was studying, committing vast quantities of material to memory – Scripture, Mishnah (the Oral Law), midrash (commentary on Scripture). halachah (rabbinic legal rulings) – all the available sacred literature of His day. It is important to emphasize that this was exactly what most of the other children of His day were doing. To such an extent that most of the people in Jesus’ day had large portions of this literature firmly committed to memory, and at the very least, almost all the Old Testament. It is only when we understand this that we can understand the peculiar way in which the rabbis of Jesus’ day taught.

As we have already said, Jesus was not only a Jew, He was a rabbi. He had had a thorough education, and when he appears on the scene, He appeared as a rabbi, recognized as such by his peers. There are many passages in the New Testament which illustrate this recognition. Here are a few:

And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you,” and he said, “Rabbi, speak” (Luke 7:40).

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, “Rabbi, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25 - Matthew 23:36).

And one of the company said unto him, “Rabbi, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me” (Luke 12:13).

And behold, a man came up to him and said, “Rabbi, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16 - Luke 18:18).

And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Rabbi, rebuke your disciples” (Luke 19:39).

And they asked him, saying, “Rabbi, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but teach the way of God truly…” (Luke 20:21 - Matthew 22:16).

Then there came to him some of the Sadducees…and they asked him, saying, “Rabbi…” (Luke 20:27 - Matthew 22:23-24).

In the above passages, note the diversity of those who recognize and address Jesus as Rabbi: private individuals, lawyers, the rich young ruler, the Pharisees, the Sadducees – a broad cross section of the people of His day.

But, why is it important to understand that Jesus was a rabbi? Because, in Jesus’ day the rabbis were accustomed to using methods of instruction that are quite foreign to the western mind of today. The term “rabbi” is derived from the Hebrew word rav, which in biblical Hebrew means “great.” The word rav is not a title in biblical Hebrew. By the time of Jesus rav had come to refer to a master, as opposed to a slave, or as opposed to a disciple. The word “rabbi” (pronounced ra-bee), means literally, “my master.” It was used as a form of address when speaking to a learned teacher, or sage. It was not yet a formal title. The rabbi in Jesus’ day was quite different from the present day rabbi. In Jesus’ day, the rabbi almost always had an occupation from which he derived his livelihood. He had not yet become the synagogal functionary that he became in a later period. He was, rather, an itinerant or peripatetic preacher functioning in much the same way as the prophet of the Old Testament. In an age in which there were no highly developed and sophisticated methods of mass communication as we have today, the rabbi had to travel from place to place if he wanted to communicate to the masses his teachings and interpretations of Scripture.

According to Professor Safrai, the itinerating rabbi was the norm, rather than the exception. There were hundreds and perhaps thousands of such rabbis circulating in the land of Israel in Jesus’ day. These rabbis did not hesitate to travel to the smallest of the villages or the most remote parts of the land. They would often conduct their classes in the village square or out under a tree (Safrai, ibid, 965). In some instances, classes would be conducted in someone’s home. Often these classes were small. The rabbis did not hesitate to teach as few as four or five students. According to custom, one could not charge for teaching the Scriptures, so the itinerant rabbi was dependent upon the hospitality and generosity of the community. Many rabbis carried their food with them – a pouch of meal and a few olives. From such they subsisted, not wanting to be a burden to their host. The rabbi’s stay in the community might last from only a few days to weeks, or even months. However, for the long term student (“disciple”), learning from a rabbi meant traveling, since the rabbi was always moving from place to place. If one wanted to learn from a rabbi, one had to “follow after him.”

Implied is the further exhortation to open one’s home to rabbis and their disciples. The rabbi (and his disciples) would naturally need to eat and sleep near where he was teaching. In Rabbinic literature there are many passages which call on the people to show hospitality to the sages. It is now easy for us to see the reason. If the people had not been hospitable, opening their homes for teaching and providing food and lodging for the rabbis and their disciples, it would have been impossible for the rabbis to teach and for the students to learn. Upon the background that can be drawn from Jewish sources, a clear picture of Jesus as a rabbi emerges from our Gospels. When we see Him at the beginning of His ministry, He is walking along the shore of the Sea of Galilee and enlisting disciples with the call, “Come, follow me” (Matthew 4:19). “Follow me,” lech aharai (literally, “walk after me”), was a technical term in Hebrew for becoming a disciple. The call to discipleship sometimes necessitated heartrending decisions. It was, more often than not, a call to leave home. (Note that this was a temporary absence, although it might involve months of study.) We recall the words of the man in Luke 9:61 who said to Jesus, “I will follow you, Lord, but first let me go say goodbye to my family.” The call to discipleship often meant leaving mother, father, wife, children, relatives, friends and traveling the country under adverse and austere conditions. It meant leaving all. We can see this reflected over and over again in the Gospels. To the rich young man in Luke 18:22ff, the call to follow Jesus meant selling all that he had, giving it to the poor, and lech aharai, “walk after me.” Peter reminds Jesus (verse 28) that he and the other disciples are not like the rich man: “We have left “ours” (i.e., home) and followed you.” Jesus responded, “Amen, (You have, and that is commendable) I say to you, there is no one who has left house (i.e., home, family)…for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive much more in this life, and in the age to come eternal life.” Note that the Beatitudes, too, are 1) a call to discipleship, but also 2) a promise of life everlasting.

If married, with his wife’s permission, a man could leave home for a period of time in order to study with a rabbi. Sometimes it was the wife who encouraged the husband to leave home to study (See Safrai, Comp. II p. 965). For some, this call to be Jesus’ disciple was too demanding, the price too high to pay, as exemplified by the rich young man, and as demonstrated in the parable of Jesus recorded in Luke 14:16-24.

Perhaps the most beautiful example of hospitality afforded to Jesus and His disciples is that pictured for us in the story of Mary and Martha recorded in Luke 10:38-42 (See Understanding The Difficult Words Of Jesus, 98-103). Mary and Martha had opened their home for both physical and spiritual nourishment – hospitality in the truest sense of the word. Another important point is seen in this story when it is related that Mary was…sitting at the feet of Jesus: This rabbinic expression is a technical term for becoming a disciple.

Notice again the clear picture of Jesus the rabbi that emerges from our Gospels. He itinerates from place to place. He depends upon the hospitality of the people. He teaches in homes or in the open air. He has disciples. His disciples follow Him from place to place. It is the picture of a 1st century rabbi.

How did the rabbis in the time of Jesus teach? What were their methods of teaching? What were they teaching?

It is correct to state that the focus of all the rabbis teaching was the Law. For the rabbis, the “Law” consisted not only of the Written Law, but of the Oral Law as well. The Written Law was the Torah, or the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), that God gave to Israel at Sinai. In addition to this written revelation, Moses also received, according to the rabbis, additional commandments or instructions that were communicated orally. These additional commandments were designated by the rabbis as the Oral Law.

The Oral Law is divided into two catagories: halachah and haggadah. Halachah is from the Hebrew root halach, meaning “to walk,” or “to go.” In other words, halachah is that path or way in which one is to walk. Halachah is the term used to refer to the whole legal system in Judaism. It includes the 613 written commandments of the Torah and all of the legal rulings and decisions of the rabbis found in the Oral Law.

Haggadah, from the Hebrew root nagad (“to draw out; to narrate or tell”), is everything that is not halachic; the non-legal portion of the Oral Law; that part which does not deal with religious laws or regulations. According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Horavot 3:8. 48c), the purpose of the haggadah, unlike the purpose of the halachah, is not to state what is “forbidden” or “permitted” nor to declare what is “pure” or “impure.” Haggadah includes history, narrative, story, legends, fables, poetry, dirges, prayers, parables, proverbs, allegories, metaphors, hyperboles, analogies, and more. The haggadah is not written as a legal textbook, nor a digest of legal precedents. It is moral and ethical instruction about personal faith and the ways of God. It strives to teach man how to live in harmony with God and in harmony with his fellow man. Its fundamental purpose is to reach out and touch the heart of man that he might “know the Creator of the world and adhere to His ways” (Sifre, Deuteronomy 49).

The common man loved haggadah. He was strengthened and encouraged by it. It was the spiritual food that nourished the soul. The sermons for the common people were mainly haggadah. More technical discussions were reserved for advanced disciples. The itinerating rabbi-preacher loved haggadah as well. It caught the people’s ear and drew the people to God. And, the rabbi that could do that – draw the people closer to God that they might know His presence and feel His power – was highly esteemed. Great crowds would throng to hear his words and disciples would eagerly follow after him.

In Jesus’ day, the stress was still upon haggadah rather than halachah. In their teaching and preaching the rabbis still focused primarily on contemporary problems and the application of biblical principles in everyday life, rather than on theoretical discussions of the legal aspects of the Law.

As surprising as it may seem, we have a record of more of the sayings and the deeds of Jesus than any other 1st century rabbi. Thus, the even greater importance of the Gospels as a witness to rabbinic, haggadic style in the 1st century. In Jesus, we find the classic example of the peripatetic rabbi. His teaching abounds in inspirational instruction that lifts man to God. It abounds in parables, moral and ethical maxims, exhortations, words of comfort and reproof, etc. To quote the great Jewish historian, Joseph Klausner, for many years professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:

In his [Jesus] ethical code there is a sublimity, distinctiveness, and originality in form unparalleled in any other Hebrew ethical code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of his parables. The shrewdness and sharpness of his proverbs and his forceful epigrams serve in an exceptional degree, to make ethical ideas a popular possession (Jesus of Nazareth; His Life, Times, and Teaching, 414).

Due to exciting breakthroughs in synoptic studies by the late Dr. Robert Lindsey, working together in Jerusalem with the late Professor David Flusser, it is now possible to reconstruct many of the discourses of Jesus and recover their original contexts. This breakthrough has made it possible to better understand not only the teaching methods and style of Jesus, but also His teaching format, the way in which He organized His discourses. These discoveries have far reaching implications for better understanding the method and style of the haggadic preacher of the 1st century.

In general, it can now be seen that Jesus’ format was as follows:

Jesus would see an incident and it would be affirmed by him with the use of the Hebrew word amen,
Jesus would then comment on the incident in the form of instruction to His disciples,
His instruction was then followed by two parables…for…out of the mouth of two witnesses is a thing established.

The Gospel records of the teaching of Jesus are also a prime source of information for understanding haggadic methods of scriptural interpretation. A wide variety of methods were used. One list of 32 haggadic hermeneutical principles is found in the Baraita of the Thirty-Two Rules, which is attributed to Eliezar ben Yose, the Galilean, CE 150. This Baraita is inserted in some printed editions of the Talmud after the tractate Berachot. It is also found in the preface to the Midrash Ha-Gadol on Genesis, and at the beginning of Mirash Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer. In the Gospels we can see the application of these rules of interpretation in the teaching of Jesus.

Of the haggadic methods of interpretation, the most frequently used by Jesus is remez. Remez, or hinting, is a very rabbinic way of making a statement or declaration about something or someone by alluding to an Old Testament verse or passage of Scripture. Jesus hints at a biblical verse or passage just by mentioning one key word or phrase in the passage. His listeners, knowing the Bible by heart, much in the same way hear a key phrase and can recall the whole passage. Often, the point being taught is found in the biblical passage immediately before or just after the “hint” from that passage. However, it was unnecessary, in fact a waste of time, to quote a long passage from the Bible which the listeners all knew from memory. The moment the “hint” was given, the whole passage hinted at immediately burst into the mind of each listener.

John the Baptist uses this method when he asks Jesus: “Are you he who is to come?” (Matthew 11:3). In other words, "Are you the Messiah?” John alludes to “The Coming One” of Malachi 3:1 and Zachariah 9:9. Jesus uses this same method in answering John: “The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are brought back to life, and the poor have the good news preached to them.” In other words, “Yes, I am the Messiah.” Jesus alludes to Isaiah 29:18, 35:5-6, 42:7, and 61-1, and John understood exactly what Jesus was saying. The allusions by John and by Jesus to Old Testament Scriptures are not only their way of communicating with each other in a highly rabbinic and abbreviated way, a kind of oral shorthand, but these allusions are also their haggadic interpretations of the Scriptures alluded to. Each is declaring that he understands these Scriptures to be messianic Scriptures, references to the promised Messiah.

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. That this is so difficult for large segments of the Christian community to see, only illustrates how dim is the recollection of their Jewish origins and to what extent they have assimilated into the pagan culture that surrounds us. We wonder what kind of dynamic organism the Church might have been throughout the ages had she clung more closely to her Hebraic roots rather than embracing and becoming amalgamated with the pagan Hellenistic oriental philosophy that persists in the Church even to this day.

We, quite frankly, are extremely concerned by the present day situation in Christendom. We see little hope for organized Christianity extricating itself from the quagmire of 19 centuries of pagan influence unless there is a concerted and intelligent endeavor to return to the historic foundations of biblical faith which are firmly established in the Land of Israel and the Judaism of Jesus’ day. It would seem that Christianity’s only hope is to see Jesus as He really is – an observant Jew, a Jewish rabbi, a Jewish Messiah. The “Gentile” Church must become more Jewish, and purge itself of the pagan influences of the last 19 centuries. May those who are not of Jewish parentage quickly rid themselves of the arrogance of which Paul warned the Roman Christians:

Do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that supports the root, but the root that supports you. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. Note…God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness (Romans 11:18, 20,22).

Do not forget that non-Jews are spoken of as wild olive shoots grafted in among the natural shoots to share the nourishment of the olive tree (Romans 11:17) adopted, to use another of Paul’s metaphors (Galatians 4:5), into a Jewish family.

Who Is Jesus? Part I

Who is Jesus? Who is he? What did he have to say about himself? Who does he claim to be? What does the term “Son of Man” call to mind?

This fact needs to be established from the beginning. Jesus didn’t hide who he was. In everything he says and in everything he does, he establishes who he is. Nowhere does he refer to himself as “Son of God” as the term is commonly used in Christianity.

By Roy B. Blizzard

Who is Jesus? Who is he? What did he have to say about himself? Who does he claim to be? What does the term “Son of Man” call to mind?

This fact needs to be established from the beginning. Jesus didn’t hide who he was. In everything he says and in everything he does, he establishes who he is. Nowhere does he refer to himself as “Son of God” as the term is commonly used in Christianity. “Son of God” is not Hebraic. Yet, it says “Son of God” in many places in the Scriptures. One must keep in mind that the term is a result of the English translation from the Greek. Although much of the New Testament was Hebrew, we have no original Hebrew text of a New Testament book. It is only as the Church moves to the West and attempts to translate these ideas, or concepts, which in many instances are impossible to translate, that they begin to pick up on this terminology, or phraseology. It is when he calls himself ben Elohim that it looks like it means “Son of God.” But, remember that it was not the term “Son of God” that was Hebraic. The term “Son” was. The rabbis always believed when Messiah, Redeemer, came, he was going to come as a “Son.” There would be a son-father relationship. “Son” is Hebraic. However, the term, Son of God, is not. Nowhere do you find it in the Old Testament. Many of these concepts in Hebrew are impossible to translate into any other language because they are very abstract, very complex. They carry with them a whole spectrum of meaning.

Someone is always inquiring as to when we are going to write a commentary. At its very best, a commentary would still fall short of conveying what the original text is attempting to convey. Rather than using all that time and energy trying to accomplish such a task, it would be easier to teach you Hebrew. The key to our understanding of these concepts is in trying to understand them from the Hebrew perspective; to attempt to understand the Hebrew language patterns, synonyms, parallelism, allegory, etc., even though they are difficult and foreign to our Western mind.

For example, if Jesus was God, whom was he praying to all the time? He was always praying to the “Father.” What about the Holy Spirit? How do we understand all of this? Our Western mind has been struggling with this since the fourth century, actually even before the 4th century. It was already a problem as the Church moved to the West in the latter part of the 2nd and on into the 3rd century, because the Western mind had to have everything rational, reasonable, explainable, had to have everything make sense…had to be able to explain God.

This is one of the basic differences between Hebrew thought patterns and those of the Western mind. To the Hebrew mind, the Hebrew language, everything, is very realistic. God was a real God who was working in a real way in history. When they speak of God, they speak of Him in realistic terms. They talk about “the hands of God,” “the face of God,” “and the feet of God.” At the same time, they know that God is a spirit, and “those that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth,” that he is, non-corporeal, meaning he does not have flesh and blood, as…“Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” But they use all these anthropomorphisms to try to explain Him. To the Hebrew mind, this is no problem, but it is completely frustrating to the Greek mind. Everything has to be explained. Everything has to be logically understood. Whereas the Hebrew mind is realistic – God is a real God that enters into a real relationship with his people, the Greek mind is idealistic. Man has to be ideal. They take a representation of the ideal man and transfer that to God so that the god is simply nothing more than a reflection of the man. Hence the magnificent Greek deities the beautifully formed bodies of both males and females. The Greeks exalted the body. They exalted physical strength, and the beautiful form of the body was reflected in the architecture and the art as well as the literature and the language. Everything was all perfectly formed and fashioned and fit together in a marvelous, intelligent, rational, reasonable, understandable pattern.

In Hebrew, you have none of that. How is it that God can have hands and face and feet and at the same time be a spirit? How is it that Jacob can wrestle with God? That Moses can see God? How is it then that the Bible says that no one has seen God at anytime?

Remember the three who came to see Abraham? Who were these three? You may be thinking “angels.” But the whole idea of angels, angelology, as we understand it today in Christendom, did not develop until about the 4th century, about the same time we have the development of all of the demons and demonology that comes into Christianity from Zoroastrianism. Do not misunderstand. That does not mean that the Hebrews did not believe there is a force of evil. They did believe that and do today, but they believe that that force was created by God and is equal to the yetzer hara, or the evil inclination within man.

One has to keep in mind one very important fact. There is only one God! There is no other god but God! As a matter of fact the devil, or Hasatan, or whatever the force of evil is called is not even the god of this world. That may be surprising to those who have taken as literal 2 Corinthians 4:4, which says in our English translations that “the god of this world has blinded the unbelievers’ minds preventing them from seeing the illuminating light of the glory of the gospel…,” and thereby assume that this can only mean the devil. Except that, in the Greek, it is ho theos ton kosmon which, in Hebrew, is el elohay ha-olam which means “the God of this universe.” The only God that there is has blinded unbelievers. Why would the devil have to blind unbelievers. The devil is not the god of anything. Whoever or whatever the force of evil is, it was created by God and is subject to God, subject to do his bidding. Not only that, but he is also subject to the man and woman of God. You remember that Jesus said, “I give you power and authority over all the power and authority that the enemy possesses and nothing shall in any way harm you.”

The three personages who came to Abraham are called in Hebrew malachim. A Malach in Hebrew is a messenger. Abraham saw them coming from afar and sent his servants out to kill the fatted lamb, prepared a meal, and they came and sat down with him under a tree. When they drew near to him, he called all three of them YHWH, or Yahweh. They partook of the meal, they talked, and two got up and went down to Sodom. One remained behind, and Abraham called that one remaining YHWH. Unfortunately, that presents a problem to the Western mind. When we begin to study this we think, “Oh, that’s not a problem; that's just God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” Except that’s not correct.

This idea that we call Trinity, and the Trinitarian concept that is espoused by so many in Christendom, is a late, historic development in the Western church. Let’s look at the historical record, at how and with whom it developed. Even before the time of Constantine, the Greeks could not understand how God could assume the form of human flesh. It was not a problem just for the Greeks. It remains a problem still for some of us today. How could God assume the form of human flesh and still be God? So, they said that, actually, he really didn’t, as there was no substance, just form. He just looked like a human being, but he really was not; and that is why he could go through walls, be anywhere, but he didn’t really have flesh and blood. They had already started thinking along those lines by the end of the 1st century. If you do not know that, then you do not understand what John, the Apostle, is getting at when he writes in one of his epistles, “If any man says that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

The Western church began to deal with this problem of the nature of Christ. It is very interesting and can be studied in any church history book, for example, Schaffs History of the Christian Church. In it, you can trace the whole development of the concept of Trinity as it originates in the latter part of the 2nd, and on into the 3rd and 4th centuries, as the Western church has wrestled over this question of the nature of Christ. They began to use the principal Greek words, homoousia, which means sameness. There were those who said that Christ was the same as God, and therefore used this term homoousia, sameness or same essence. Others said no, that he was not the same but just like God, so they used the term hommoiousia, a like essence. Then there were those who said no, that they were actually different, three distinct individuals in the godhead, and they used the term heteroousia. It is interesting, in studying the various church fathers, to know which one of these various positions they espoused.

Remember Eusebius, the bishop of Caesaria in the 4th century? It was Eusebius whom Helena, the queen mother of Constantine, joined with to travel throughout the land of Israel, searching out the sites that had been made sacred by Jesus and his disciples. When Helena, the queen mother, went back home, Eusebius wrote a book, the Onomastikon, a dictionary of place names in which he identified over 1,000 sites that they had personally sought out and identified, one of which is today the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem is another, along with many other sacred sites. Euseblus also wrote another book, a classic in its field called Ecclesiastical History, in which he refers back to writings that have been lost to us of some of the early church fathers, such as Papias. It so happens that Eusebius believed in heteroousia. He believed that Jesus was different than the Father, that they were two separate and distinct entities

The church fathers argued back and forth over this issue, and it is not until the 4th century, with a man by the name of Athanasius, that the church finally voted on homoousia, or same essence. Paraphrased, the proposal is basically this, that there is just one God. There is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit…then, they made a mistake. They said, “…and these three personae,” or these three persons, “are one.” So, what you had were three distinct and different persons in what was called the “godhead.” That was accepted for a while following the council of Nicea, until Constantine died after which his son took the throne and changed the whole concept, banishing Athanasius.

The argument waxed heavy, and in the next 40 years, Athanaslus was banned five times! All over the issue of the nature of Christ. The church would accept it, then throw it out, accept it, and then throw it out, again and again, keeping Athanasius traveling back and forth. When it was finally accepted and they made their decree, it was basically that there is just one God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and this is a great mystery and no one is able to explain it. The simple fact of the matter is that not only has no one been able to explain it, but also no one has been able to understand it. Nor have we been able to understand or explain it from that day to this. Why? Because it is not Hebraic; it is not biblical. It is a product of the Western mind, in its attempt at trying to explain or understand God.

There are those movements within Christianity that have rejected Trinitarianism, e.g., the “Oneness” folk. They have for years espoused just one God and only one God. That was correct, but many said Jesus was all God and that when he was on earth and was praying to the Father, the throne room was vacant and he was talking to himself. As soon as we start trying to use our Western mind to try to explain God, we are going to have problems because, basically and fundamentally, God cannot be understood according to our Western method of reasoning and conceptualizing. Try to forget Oneness, try to forget Trinitarianism. Try to forget all the usual Christian theological terms and just ask, “How can I understand God?” “How can I begin trying to understand God?” “Where do I begin?”

What is the basic, fundamental, foundational principle of biblical faith? That there is just one God. That is the whole foundation upon which biblical faith is built. Shema, Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad, “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one.” So, if there is only one, there cannot be two, which automatically eliminates, as we have already seen, anyone or anything else being a god. Satan, or the devil is not the god of anything.

However, the question is still there. How do I understand God? I can understand him best if I look at the names by which he is called, the names by which he is known. When I look in the biblical text at the names of God, I find that there are well over 50 principal, proper names for God that are used in the biblical text, not counting all the biblical euphemisms. Adding the euphemisms, there are probably another 50, or well over 100 different names for God that are used.

What do we mean by euphemism? Descriptive phrases such as “the holy One, blessed be He” are euphemisms. The Hebrew have an aversion to calling God by his name, so they use a term that refers to God, or that in some way means God, or is descriptive of God. They simply use a phrase like hashemayim, the heaven. In using that term, they are referring to God. For example, in the passage, “I have sinned against heaven.” What does it mean to have “sinned against heaven?” The next passage, which is a parallel passage, explains what it means with “I have sinned against thee, O God.” In this context, the heaven is a euphemism for God. Hashemayim, hamakom, the place, hakadosh, baruch hu, the Holy One, blessed be He, are euphemisms.

In researching the proper names that are used for God, we are introduced to one right at the beginning in the biblical text, Bereishit barah Elohim et hashemayim ve et haaretz, “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth.” Then in chapter two, we are introduced to YHWH Elohim. It is interesting, as you look at these in Hebrew, that Elohim refers to a creative deity, a god who is performing mighty acts, such as calling the world into existence out of nothing. You can take a Hebrew concordance and look up the word, Elohim, and see that it is used all the way through the Old Testament. Everywhere it is used, you will see that Elohim always refers to a God who is far removed from his people.

However, when you look at YHWH, or Yahweh, it is always a God who is covenanting with his people, or entering into a covenant relationship with his people in an intimacy of fellowship. It is therefore safe to say that Elohim refers to the creative aspect of deity, and YHWH the covenant aspect of deity. When the two are coupled together, as “the Lord God,” Yahweh Elohim, it refers to the totality of all that God is. There are many other names: El Shaddai meaning “the God who nourishes, or sustains me, suckling me from his breast.” In that particular name for God, we see the feminine aspect of deity. Few are aware that, in Hebrew, God has no gender. So, is God male or female? Most would answer that everybody knows he is male. Don’t we pray “Our Father…?” Except that, in Hebrew, his name is Yud hey vav hey (YHWH), and Yud hey is masculine while vav hey is feminine. The Jews have always believed that God in neither masculine nor feminine but both. That is important to keep in mind. If God created Adam Betzelmeynu kidmuteynu, “in our image and our likeness,” and God was neither male nor female but both, then what was Adam? Something very interesting to think about, Yud hey vav hey (YHWH) yerape means “the God that heals.” El Elyon means “the highest God that there is,” the high God, the God that is God above all and, in the sense again of being the only God that there is. YHWH yireh means “the God who sees,” the all-seeing God. In this particular name of God, we see the omniscience of God, the all-knowingness of God.

Adonai actually is not really a name in the sense of the others, but more of a euphemism because it simply means “master,” or Lord. We even use it today in common terms, as Adon so-and-so, or Mr. so-and-so. It means master, but we use it as a euphemism because we do not speak the name. We do not pronounce Yud hey vav hey. We do not say Yahweh or Jehovah, but whenever we see this, the tetragrammaton, the Yud hey vav hey (YHWH), we say “Adonai.” So, when you hear someone say “Adonai,” and they are reading in the biblical text and say Adonai Elohim, then you know it is YHWH Elohim, but it carries with it the connotation of Master, or Lord. Another is Ruach Elohim, the Holy Spirit, which has to do with the empowering aspect of deity, “the God who empowers.”

I will mention a few more here because, by looking at the names, we are able to understand something about the nature of God. The reason we can do this is that what God is doing is reflected in the various names by which he is called. You see here that God is covenanting with his people. God is sustaining his people. God is entering into a covenant with his people as El Brit. God is faithful to his people as El hane'eman. God is a holy God as El hakadosh. He is the God of all, God of heaven as well as God of earth as El hashemayim. He is my rock, my fortress, El sali, El simchat Gili, the God who is “the joy of my exaltation.” He is the God who is due honor and glory and respect as El kavod, as the God of knowledge, El da’ot, as the God of truth, El emet, as the God of my salvation El Yeshuati. He is the God of compassion El rachum and the righteous God El Tzadik. He is Elohim chaiim, the living God, and El Tsva’ot, the God of hosts, El mishpat, the God of judgment, El marom, the God of heights, El mikarov, the One who is near unto his people. He is Elohey mauzi, the God who is the God of my strength, the One who gives me strength. He is El Elohey kol basar, the God who is the God of all flesh; YHWH mekadesh, the One who causes me to be holy; YHWH nisi, not just the God who is my banner, the One who goes before me, but a nes in Hebrew is also a miracle, the God who performs miracles, the God who is my miracle, or the God who sustains me by miracle, YHWH shalom, the One who is peace or, as we saw before, brings wholeness, or completeness.

In Luke 3:6, we see “And all flesh will see the salvation of God.” What does this mean? In English, it is difficult to extract the whole of its meaning. However, in Hebrew it says “Ve ra'u kol basar et Yeshuat Elohim.” Yeshuat Elohim is just like Ruach Elohim, like YHWH Elohim in that it is a construct, a name for God. Yeshuat Elohim means the God who has redeemed me, or the God who has saved me, or the God who has Yeshua’d me. Now, is this something interesting or is this just some obscure term that is picked up by the New Testament? Remember that much of the New Testament text carries allusions back to things in the Old Testament. Example: Exodus 14:13. What it says is Ra’u et Yeshuat YHWH, “See the Yeshuat of YHWH, see the salvation of God, see God saving, see God redeeming.” You will find the same thing in 2 Chronicles 20:17, the same thing in Isaiah 52:10. Here you have the exact quote, the passage to which Luke is referring in the exact same Hebrew structure, Ve ra’u kol basar et Yeshuat Eloheynu, “And all flesh is going to see our God redeeming,” God saving. Jesus said, “The Son of Man (Daniel 7:13,14) is come to seek and to save those that are lost.” But, what did Ezekiel 34:11 say? God said, “I, I myself will seek and save those that are lost.” When John the Baptist sends his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who should come?” He wants to know if Jesus is the king who is to come having yeshua, salvation, in his hand. Isaiah 52:10 says, Ve ra’u et kol basar Eloheynu, “And all flesh is going to see God redeeming.” Zechariah 9:9ff says, “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion, Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem. See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation….”

There is only one, but this one God is known to us by as many as 50 or more different names. In each one of these names that is used for God, we can see some aspect of deity, some one thing that God is doing that helps us understand something of the nature of this God that we worship and serve. The more I understand about what it is that he does, the more I not only understand Him, the more that I am in relationship with Him, but the more benefit that ensues for my own practical daily use. Elohim, the creative aspect of deity, is not all that God is and not all that God does. YHWH, the covenant aspect of deity, is not all that God does, nor all that he is. El Shaddai, the sustaining aspect of deity is not all that he is or that he does. Yeshuat Elohim, the redemptive aspect of deity, is not all that God does. It is correct to say that Yeshuat Elohim is all God, but is not all the God there is. Ruach Elohim is all God, but not all that there is.

God is the sum and total of all of his parts. He is the sum and total of all that he is doing, and the very nature of God is such that he can be doing this, this, this, and so on, all at different times, independent of one another, for the benefit of his people – yet, he is still one. Consider H2O. A cup of it is H2O, but it is not all the H2O that there is. All of the H2O would be the sum and total of all of it flowing together that there is in the world. God is the sum and total of all his parts. For the Hebrew mind, that is no problem – only for the Western mind.

How is it that Jesus could have been God and yet prayed to the Father? Look at Isaiah 9:6. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” How is it that son can also be father? How is it that child can also be son? How is it that son can also be God? It is no problem for the Hebrew mind, only the Western mind. This is the reason why the rabbis always believed that when Redeemer came, when God came to redeem, he was going to come as a son.

It is only when I begin to put away all of the Greek gnosticism and Greek philosophy, the theology of the Western church, and try to begin understanding God from the Hebraic perspective that all of this suddenly makes sense. There is just one God. Jesus was God – but, he was not all the God there was. The Father was all God, but he was not all the God that there was. God is the sum and total of all of his parts, the sum and total of everything he is doing. Therefore, we can best understand who he is and what he is doing by looking at the names by which he is called.Yet, that raises another question. Why was it necessary for God to assume human form and become flesh in order to effect reconciliation or redemption? This is a real problem. We could understand, and understand it a lot better – that Jesus was God – if he just was not an ordinary human being, if he just was not flesh and blood. That's the same problem the Greeks had. Why would and how did God assume the form of human flesh? It is important to remember that this was not the only time God did that. Remember the time the three malachim (messengers) came to Abraham? And what were they? Ghosts or spirits do not eat, yet, these three ate with Abraham. Why, now, is this all so extraordinary? Why is it suddenly that Jesus becomes some kind of exception? Do we so soon forget, first of all, that God is God? And that one of the principle characteristics of deity is that he is omnipotent – all powerful, meaning he can do anything he wants to do, whether I understand it or not?

However, there had to be some reason for God doing what he was doing. God is not capricious. God just does not do something to confuse us or cause us problems. What was his purpose? To understand, we have to go all the way back to Genesis 1:26, and look at a very interesting passage of Scripture where God says, Naaseh Adam, “Let us make Adam…” betzelmaynu kidmutaynu. Right here is where we make our mistake. We missed the whole point, which caused us to miss it all the way through the biblical text. We missed it with Jesus. Instead of translating, we just transliterated. God created Adam and, of course, his counterpart, Eve. What do we picture in our minds when we say, “Adam and Eve?” Someone who looks like us, and most of us have a mental image of the garden of Eden, perhaps a beautiful meadow right in the middle of which is a large, spreading tree covered with little red apples. Look at Genesis 5:1-2. “In the day that God created Adam, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them, and blessed them and called their name Adam…” Now we have a problem. Already that means there was more than one. What was it God had created? Here is a story that graphically illustrates how far off our interpretations can be. In a primary Sunday school class of approximately five and six-year-olds, they had been learning about major Old Testament figures – Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the great heroes of faith. At the end of the series, the teacher asked them to draw a picture depicting each one’s favorite story. She went around the room and saw many that were clearly recognizable, David and Goliath, Daniel and the lion’s den, etc. Then she came to little Roy, and his picture was a total puzzle. It was an old man at the wheel of a red Cadillac convertible with a younger man and woman in the back seat. When asked which Bible story this was, he looked up and replied, as though the teacher should have known, “That’s God driving Adam and Eve out of the garden!”

Our problem is created by our transliteration. A translation is when you take a word from one language and you give it a meaning in another language. A transliteration is when you take a word in one language and put it in another language so that it just sounds the same, but you have not assigned it a meaning. We have done that with a lot of words in the biblical text which has created all kinds of problems. For example: baptize. What is to baptize? Our understanding and answer probably will depend upon our denominational background, anything from sprinkling to total immersion. In Hebrew, however, it only means one thing and one thing only – total immersion in the mikvah, the ritual immersion bath, or any body of water meeting all the criteria for a kosher ritual immersion bath. We know exactly how it was built, how much water it had to contain to be kosher, and how baptism was done. But because we only transliterated, there has been a misunderstanding for centuries.

To be continued next week in part II…

Jesus a Jew? Says Who?

Our most recent featured article, Jesus a Jew? Says who?, is actually an article that has been on our Web site for a while but we thought it relevant enough to call it to your attention again. Believe it or not, some Christians are surprised to hear that Jesus was a Jew. Read this very interesting article by Dr. Blizzard and David Bivin.

By Roy B. Blizzard, Jr., Ph.D. and David Bivin

As surprising as it may seem, many Christians are not aware that Jesus was a Jew. As a matter of fact, when some hear it said that he was, they get indignant and even mad. This has happened to both authors many times.

"How can you say Jesus was a Jew? Everybody knows he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and is therefore God and not a Jew. He just happened to live among the Jews."

This a verbatim response to a statement made by Dr. Roy Blizzard during an appearance on Trinity Broadcasting Network on February 21, 1985. The above was not an isolated response to Dr. Blizzard's statement. A number of other viewers reacted in a similar vein. For instance: "What is all this stuff about Jesus being a Jew? He wasn't a Jew, he was the first Christian and the founder of the Christian Church."

It is most unfortunate that this type of thinking is prevalent in Christian circles today. Actually, it is an expression of a subtle, often subconscious attitude on the part of many Christians that is quite serious and most dangerous. We might even go so far as to define it as "hellish." It is a "hellish," ingrained anti-Semitism that expresses itself in an unwillingness to accept Jesus as a Jew. The perverted logic is, "How could anyone so dear and precious to me, someone I love so much and to whom I have surrendered my life, be a Jew?"

The authors believe that this type of thinking expresses the conviction of many Christians today. It is usually buried deep within the subconscious mind, or repressed, and only manifests itself overtly when one's spiritual guard is down. It is the result of the spiritual-ship of the Word of God being torn loose from the moorings of the historical foundations of biblical faith, moorings that were secured firmly in the foundations of historic Judaism. As a result, the spiritual-ship has for centuries been awash in a sea of pagan theology that has led to the gentilization, i.e., paganization, of the Church. We have forgotten that we were wild olive branches grafted into the natural olive tree. We have forgotten from whence it is that the branch receives the nourishing sap. We have forgotten that we no longer have pagan ancestors, but our ancestors are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel, and that we too passed through the sea with Moses. We have lost our affinity to things Jewish and, if you will, to a Jewish Jesus.

The Church has failed to recognize for the last 1800 years that the movement to which Jesus gave birth was a Jewish one, totally within the historic Judaism of his day. Further, Jesus himself was a Jew, a rabbi, spoke Hebrew, used well-known rabbinic methods of teaching, and perhaps most importantly, drew largely on the Scriptures and oral traditions of his day in his teaching. It is often overlooked that much of what Jesus said was not new or original but was based on what the rabbis had said and were saying. Jesus was constantly referring back to the Scriptures and to the oral traditions of rabbis who had preceded him or who were his contemporaries. Unless this fact is clearly understood one will be greatly confused when an attempt is made to understand the magnificent sayings of our Lord. The above television viewers are obviously unacquainted with the real Jesus. It is the purpose of this article to address the question – Was Jesus a Jew?

It is very difficult for us, almost 2,000 years removed from Jesus' day, to project ourselves back across the centuries of time to a culture and language so totally foreign to the western mind of today. And yet, before we can even begin to understand the magnificent and thrilling words of Jesus that is exactly what we must do. And again, the first thing that one must realize is that Jesus was a Jew. This fact should be obvious; however, as we have mentioned, it is, surprising how many Christians are shocked to learn that Jesus was a Jew. And, not just any ordinary Jew. He was a rabbi, a teacher, one learned in the Scriptures and the religious literature of his day, which was considerable.

Let us analyze the logic of the argument that Jesus was not a Jew. The fact that multitudes of Christians believe this is astonishing. Even the skeptics and the agnostics throughout the ages never advanced this argument. To begin with, Jesus' genealogy is Jewish. In the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke his lineage is traced back to David and the patriarchs in typical Jewish fashion. The angel Gabriel announced to Mary that the child, Jesus, that would be conceived by the Holy Spirit within her womb, would be given "the throne of his ancestor, David" (Luke 32). His family was Jewish: his earthly father's name, Joseph, was the second most common Jewish name of the period, exceeded only by the name Simeon. His mother's name, Mary, was the most common Jewish feminine name of the period. Jesus himself had a common Jewish name. We learn from inscriptions dating from the first century that the name Jesus was the third most common man's name, tied with the names Judah and Zechariah. He had Jewish relatives: Elizabeth, Zechariah the priest, and their son, John the Baptist; as well as his own brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judah, and his sisters, who are unnamed (Matthew 13:55,66; Mark 6:3). Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21), and since his parents were not from the tribe of Levi, after Mary's purification, "according to the Law of Moses" (Luke 2,21), when Jesus was one month old, he was taken by his parents to Jerusalem for the ceremony known as pidyon ha-ben, or Redemption of the First Born (See Numbers 8:14,16,18; 18:15-16). Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem every year to observe the Feast of Passover (Luke 2:41). Jesus too was an observant Jew. It was his custom to attend the synagogue services on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16). According to the Gospels, on at least one occasion (Luke 4:17-20), he was called upon to publicly read from the Scriptures in the synagogue, something a non-Jew would never have been asked to do.

Like all observant Jews of the first century, Jesus wore tzitziyot, ("tassels" or "fringes") on the four corners of his robe as commanded in Numbers 15:37-41 (compare Deuteronomy 22:12). We see this dramatically illustrated in the story of the woman who, for twelve years, had suffered from a flow of blood. She was healed when she came up behind him and touched the "fringe of his garment" (Matthew 9:20, parallel to Luke 8:44). References to the fringed garment which Jesus wore can also be found in Mark 6:56 (parallel to Matthew 14:36).

It is very likely that Jesus also wore tefillin, ("phylacteries"), the two leather boxes each containing four small parchments inscribed each with a different passage of Scripture (Exodus 13:1-10, 11-16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21) which were bound by leather straps, one on the forehead and one usually on the left arm. From Jewish sources it is not certain whether the tefillin were worn all-day or just at times of prayer. It appears that more observant Jews in Jesus' day wore them all day. Actual phylacteries, or tefillin, dating from the first century, have been found in the Qumran caves along the shore of the Dead Sea. These ancient phylacteries are almost identical to those worn by Jews today.

How can we be nearly certain that Jesus wore phylacteries, especially since the wearing of phylacteries is not specifically commanded in the Bible, but represents a rabbinic interpretation of the above four Scriptures? The answer is found in Matthew 23:5: "…they make their phylacteries [tefillin] broad and their fringes [tzitziyot] long…" Jesus is here criticizing certain of the Pharisees for their religious hypocrisy, enlarging their tefillin and lengthening their tzitziyot to demonstrate how "spiritual" they were. He was not criticizing the wearing of tefillin and tzitziyot. As we have already shown, Jesus himself wore tzitziyot! Furthermore, notice that in the beginning of this passage in Matthew 23, Jesus, tells his followers to "practice and observe whatever they [the Pharisees] tell you, but not what they do, because they do not practice what they preach" (Matthew 23:2-3). Jesus never condemns the custom of wearing, phylacteries. Further, had not Jesus worn phylacteries along with fringes, he would surely have been criticized for this by the Pharisees. We can only conclude that in his manner of dress Jesus was just like the other observant Jews of his day.

Those outside the mainstream of Judaism, as well as non-Jews, also testify to his Jewish-ness. For example, when Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the well and asks her for a drink of water, she questions, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" (John 4:9). During Jesus' interrogation by Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea (A.D. 26-36), Pilate explodes in frustration, "Am I a Jew?", and then states, "Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me" (John 18:35).

The skeptics who have tried to discredit Jesus have frequently claimed that Jesus did not believe he was the Messiah, nor claim to be the Messiah, but none have ever accused Jesus of not being a Jew. And, it is no wonder. In view of the evidence, if Jesus was not a Jew, who is, or who was?

(The above is a brief excerpt from the book Jesus the Rabbi and His Rabbinic Method of Teaching by Dr. Roy B. Blizzard.)

Matthew 5:21-22

Our passage in translation for today is an extremely difficult passage for the non-Hebrew speaker. It is the passage in Matthew 5:21-22. [21] Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: [22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

By Roy B. Blizzard

Our passage in translation for today is an extremely difficult passage for the non-Hebrew speaker. It is the passage in Matthew 5:21-22.

[21] Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

[22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

What is Jesus saying? What does it mean by "…whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire?"

It was a popular idea several years ago in certain circles that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that the New Testament was originally composed in Aramaic. This idea was promulgated mainly by a gentleman by the name of George M. Lamsa. Mr. Lamsa happened to be a personal acquaintance and had, on occasion, attended seminars I conducted in San Antonio where he lived at the time. He was a fine gentleman and I respected him greatly for the monumental amount of work that he had done with little formal training.

Mr. Lamsa, in addition to his translations, wrote a book, Idioms of the Bible Explained, a Key to the Original Gospel. The book was published by Harper and Rowe. I do not mean to take anything away at all of the intelligence and integrity of Mr. Lamsa, but most of what he says in his book is terribly in error. For example; in his treatment on this passage (on page 94), is as follows:

But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be guilty to the council: And whosoever shall say, thou effeminate one shall be doomed to hell fire. (Matthew 5:22 literal translation from Aramaic)

Then Mr. Lamsa goes on to explain "Raca in Aramaic means to spit in one’s face. In the East," Mr. Lamsa continued, "spitting in each other’s face is done very frequently during the business hours and the times persons enter into heated arguments. When a merchant and his prospective customer disagree in their bargaining they generally spit in each other’s face."

Such a translation and commentary forces me to question how well the late Mr. Lamsa knew Aramaic. In both Aramaic and Hebrew the word, Raca, is a word of derision meaning empty headed. We would say the person is stupid or an idiot or extremely dumb – beware. When translated literally from the Hebrew, the passage reads:

Everyone that is angry with his brother without cause is liable to the bet din or local congregational court. Everyone that says to his brother you are an empty-headed idiot is liable to the Sanhedrin and everyone that says "you are a fool" (in Hebrew Naval) is liable for the fire of gehenna.

In order to understand the passage, notice the increasing order and severity of both the crime and the punishment. The one that is angry with his brother will be brought before the local congregational court for judgment. Remember, every congregation had its own court of law which judged certain transgressions. However, whoever slandered a brother would be brought before a higher court, namely the Sanhedrin, for judgment as cases of liable or slander could be judged only by the higher court.

But whoever called a brother a "Naval" was in danger of eternal judgment. What is a Naval and why was this transgression so heinous. In Everyman’s Talmud by Abraham Cohen published by Schocken Books, paperback edition, page 3, we read:

Whether atheism in the sense of the dogmatic denial of God’s existence was accepted by anybody in biblical and rabbinic times is doubtful. But both in the Bible and the Talmud, the concern was with the practical atheist who conducted his life as though he would never be held to account for his deeds. In biblical literature, the statement there is no God is made by the Naval, i.e., the morally corrupt person who, while acknowledging the existence of a creator, refused to believe that he was at all interested in the actions of his creatures. His counterpart in the Talmud is the apikoros or epicurean who likewise denies the fundamental principle of religion (Baba Batra 16b) by his abdominal conduct. The Rabbis define the atheist as one who affirmed there is no judgment and no judge (Genesis Rabbi XXVI.6) in the universe irrespective of his disbelief in the existence of God.

What is the naval? In Psalms 53, we read:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.

Notice the character of the individual. The wicked does only abominable deeds and is rejected by God. When one says those things of another brother, he is in essence pronouncing judgment. He has usurped a place and a position of judgment that belongs only to God. In doing so, he is placing himself in danger of eternal judgment. Perhaps the moral here is that only God knows the true heart and intent of a man and it ill behooves us to stand in judgment of one another.

Exodus 20:12, The Fifth Commandment

Translation: Honor your father and your mother to the end that your days may be long on the earth that YHWH, your Elohim, gives to you.

Comments: Notice that this is the only one of the Ten Commandments with a promise: if you honor your father and mother, your days will be long upon the earth. Perhaps one reason why one’s days might not be long upon the earth if they fail to honor their father and mother is because in the Mishnah, Order Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin 7:4, "the rebellious and the disobedient son is to be stoned."

By Roy B. Blizzard

Translation:

Honor your father and your mother to the end that your days may be long on the earth that YHWH, your Elohim, gives to you.

Comments:

Notice that this is the only one of the Ten Commandments with a promise: if you honor your father and mother, your days will be long upon the earth. Perhaps one reason why one’s days might not be long upon the earth if they fail to honor their father and mother is because in the Mishnah, Order Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin 7:4, "the rebellious and the disobedient son is to be stoned."

In Deuteronomy 21:18-21, it states that the stubborn and rebellious son will be stoned to death and in Exodus 21:17, it states that the son who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death.

Judaism placed great emphasis upon family; not only the parents’ responsibilities to children, but also the children’s responsibilities to the parents. That responsibility continued throughout the lifetime of the parents. It was the responsibility of the child to see that their parents were adequately provided for in their lifetime and to ensure a decent burial at their death.

Jesus calls attention to this very fact in Mark 7: 10-13, when He says, "Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’" Then Jesus continues (referring back to Exodus 20:12 and 21:17) saying, "if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban’" (that is, a gift offered unto God as a sacrifice) "then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees, saying they have, in essence, made the word of God of no effect by no longer requiring the sons to be responsible for their parents.

It is interesting in our archeological excavations at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem we found the inscription incised on the leg of a bowl with the word "CORBAN" confirming this practice mentioned in this passage in Mark 7: 10-13.

To summarize, all three resources – the written law, the oral law, and the words of Jesus – emphasize the importance of one honoring their parents.