Here's an interesting quote:
"The Torah was given in the desert, given with all publicity in a place to which no one had any claim, lest, if it were given in the land of Israel, the Jews might deny to the Gentiles any part of it."
Mekilta on Exodus 19.2
Newman, E I and Spitz, S (eds., 1945). The Talmudic Anthology. Berhman House.
Who hasn't heard of the parable of the cloth and wineskins in Luke 5:36-39? Usually this parable is distilled like so: The old wine is the old religious order or Old Covenant and the new wine is the new religious order ushered in by Christ or the New Covenant.
However, most writers ignore the context of the parable set by the question, which elicited the parable in the first place. In Luke 5:33 Jesus is asked, John the Baptist's disciples and the Pharisees have instituted a new set of fasts over and above the one's required by the Torah, why don't your disciples do the same?
Jesus puts forward two arguments:
This is quite a different story then the one traditionally taught. Usually this parable is used to support the idea of leaving behind the old wineskin, Judaism and the Old Covenant, to embrace the new wineskin, Christianity and the New Covenant.
Jesus isn't advocating a new religious order, in fact He appears to be endorsing the current one in place. Thanks to Brad Young for pointing me in the right direction [1].
[1] Young B (1995). Jesus the Jewish Theologian. Hendrickson Publishers, MA, USA. pp 155-160.
The Council of Nicea [Fresco in Sistine Salon, Vatican]A few months ago, I was asked to draft a constitution for a new church for a group of people who had left a Baptist church. The constitution had the following provisions as checks and balances:
Since they had recently worshipped at a Baptist church I assumed that voting would be an accepted practice amongst them. After reading the first draft, I was surprised that the new minister was strongly opposed to voting for Elders. I pointed out that the Greek word for "appoint" used in Acts, in the context of selecting Elders, was "Cheirotoneo" (G5500) could be translated as "a show of hands". Interestingly, I notice that in the ESV, Cheirotoneo is the only word translated as "appointed" in connection to Elders. He looked it up and said he felt it could be construed as a "laying on of hands." Plato had used the word in the context of selecting Senators for the Athenian Parliament, and it would be difficult to imagine that they would tolerate anything but a vote. He replied that "God has gathered these people around me, and I will not allow anything that will put my ministry at risk. I'm not happy."
Being a new church, I said the new members might be unfamiliar with each other, so interim Elders could be selected and then elections could be held, say, six months later. I spoke with another church member, who would later become one of the Elders about the matter and his reply was "we have been together for some weeks now, before you came along. If you do not like the way it is, then you don't have to come."
At the next church meeting, he proceeded to announce his selection of Elders based on "what God had told him."
Afterwards I approached one of the elders and advised him now that an eldership had been selected, it was appropriate for me to end my involvement in the development of the constitution.
Later I had the opportunity to review the final constitution and I see that they retained about half the text of the original document. However when it came to the checks and balances they replaced the before mentioned provisions with:
Its interesting to note that Berakhot 55a, based on Exodus 35.30, also teaches that the consent of the governed is required in selecting communal leadership.
There is, however, another aspect which modernity assigns to legitimate leadership, particularly in Western democracies -- that is, leaders can only govern with the consent of the governed. This very principle is found in the Talmud:
"Rabbi Issac said: 'We do not appoint a communal leader unless the community is consulted,' as it is said, 'See the Lord has called by name, Betzalel.' (Exo 35.30) The Holy One said to Moses: 'Moses is Betzalel acceptable to you?' Moses said: 'Master of the Universe, if he is acceptable to You, he is certainly acceptable to me.' God said to Moses: 'Even so, go and ask them (i.e. Bnei Yisrael,... to get their consent)' Moses went and asked them: 'Is Betzalel acceptable to you?' They said to him, 'If he is acceptable to the Holy One and to you, he is acceptable to us.' (Berakhot 55a).
Obviously, the people's consent, if it is to be meaningful, must be both voluntary and knowing. Both Moses and Betzalel had to make full disclosure of their activities to obtain and maintain the people's consent -- even the approval of God is not sufficient. [Source: Goldrich, K S (2004). Parashat
Vayakhel-Pekudei Ha Hodesh.]
In the Mishnah, Peah 8.7, more than one person must handle public funds and distribution must be handled by a minimum of three. Yuma 38a suggests that transparency is a key factor in handling public funds and teaches that any appearance of impropriety should be avoided.
It is naive in the extreme to establish Christian churches and organisations without adequate provisions against the Evil Inclination.
Why is church governance relevant at all to the congregation, one may ask? Isn't it enough for the congregation to feel that they are being well shepherded and taught?
The question of the status of Gentile believers in the kingdom of God is a common thread to all the arguments. Addressing this question may present a way around the difficulty.
Paul seemed reluctant for Gentile Believers to undergo physical circumcision (see Galatians 5.3) , but did that mean they were not to be circumcised at all? In Colossians 2.11-12 Paul declares that Gentile believers have indeed been circumcised and baptised thus fulfilling the two requisite Rituals required for becoming a proselyte.
If all Gentile Believers are Proselytes then Numbers 15.15-16 applies and One Law is thereby established.
If then a Gentile Believer becomes Torah Observant, wouldn't they outwardly begin to bear some resemblance to Jewish culture which traditionally has had the same goal?
FFOZ have been repelled by One Law because of the disunity it creates between believers. There is no doubt that the Torah itself has a sanctifying effect. It is a sword that divides. Rather than discarding One Law perhaps the problem is an inappropriate application of Galatians 6.1.
[1] Michael, B and Lancaster D T (2009). Messiah Journal. Issue 101. pp 46-70
Bereans Online has a really good discussion about the relationship between ethnically Jewish believers and Gentile believers within the kingdom of God. The discussion is within the context of an examination of a new theory called "Divine Invitation Theology."
This new teaching reasons that because the Apostles would have seen the issue through the lens of the LXX, they would have not considered the believing Gentile in the same category as the ger as mentioned in the Torah. Hence, this new teaching claims that none of the Torah passages that refer to gerim apply to today’s believing Gentiles.
Key texts used by this new teaching:
As for the assembly of, there shall be one statute for Jews and for the proselyte, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as a Jew is, so shall the proselyte be before HaShem. There is to be one Torah and one ordinance for Jews and for the proselyte who sojourns with you. Numbers 15:15-16 (paraphrased)
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1 NKJV
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” Acts 15:5
Bereans Online responds:
This new teaching introduces several anachronisms into the discussion. It also pretends to know the way that the Apostles “read” the Scriptures – denying the power of the Holy Spirit to clearly communicate through His eternal word in their native language: Hebrew. If the Apostles were biased to accept what this new teaching contends was the First Century practice of proselytism by the LXX, then that very position undermines their subsequent rulings as extra-biblical, and having no authority for the believer then or now.
While the Septuagint (LXX) is invaluable to our understanding of ancient Hebrew as well as First Century Greek, using it the way that this new teaching does is anachronistic. It takes the usage of the word “proselutos” as it was used in a time after the First Century and projects it back into the days of the Apostles – and then even further back to the time of the translating of the LXX (270 BCE). This ignores the history and etymology of the Greek word “proselutos.”
During the reign of the King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (of Selucid Egypt), around 270 BCE, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. Traditionally, this translation was made by seventy [LXX] Jewish scholars.
The translators of the Septuagint considered the context of each usage of the word ger [stranger, sojourner] to consider if it was referring to a covenant member or a pagan. When the context dictated that the reference was to a Gentile covenant member, they translated ger into the Greek word proselutos. It is from this word that we get the English word “proselyte.” Much
confusion has arisen because of the character that this word acquired after the translating of the Septuagint. When the Septuagint was written, this Greek word was found nowhere else. The word seems to have come into existence solely for the purposes of the Septuagint translators – and its usage is not divinely inspired. It was the translators’ paraphrase.
The Greek adjective proselutos comes from pros [toward] and erxomai [to come or go]. In other words, “to come over toward.” This usage started as a way to describe those covenant members who were not members of the covenant community of Israel by birth. This usage eventually redefined the word. It started off as a way to identify those Gentiles who “crossed over” to side with the God of Israel and to live with Israel in the covenant community (to “come near” is Temple language).
It was only later that the word came to mean “those who formally converted” to another religion. The important distinction is that the word was not used in the Septuagint because it implied formal conversion, but rather because it described the actual way that such people could be distinguished: namely, that they had drawn near to Israel to participate in the worship of the One True God. It is anachronistic to read the Septuagint usage of the word proselutos and the present meaning of “proselyte” back into the usage at the time of the translating of the Septuagint. To assume that the Apostles did not correctly read and use the Hebrew text is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in helping them rule correctly regarding Gentiles.
Normative Judaism has this same usage of the word “ger.” Many English translations that are used in normative Judaism translate the word “ger” as “proselyte.” For instance, the Stone Chumash translates Leviticus 19:34 in this way:
The proselyte who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34a – Stone Chumash
If the word ger was translated consistently, it would read:
The proselyte who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were a proselyte in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34a
This is obviously a case of writing a theology into the text as opposed to allowing the text to frame our teaching. This is a fundamental principle in Bible study: the text informs us, we do not inform the text. The Bereans of Acts 17 practiced exegesis (meaning from the text), not eisegesis (meaning into the text). Eisegesis is something used by experimental theologies.
There is no Scriptural basis for “ritual conversion” or to become a proselyte. The Scriptures speak against those who would seek to gain some sort of “Jewish identity” by undergoing this man-made ritual. Beloved, it is a man-made tradition that says that a man or woman can become a Jew by undergoing a ceremony – it is not the Torah.
When this new teaching promotes the idea that the Apostles fell into the trap of allowing the practice of ritual conversion to twist their understanding of Scripture, it is a great concern. If, as this new teaching asserts, the Apostles read the passages pertaining to gerim and their covenant obligations and were influenced by a much later understanding of the Greek word “proselutos” then it is proof that their teaching of Acts 15 and 21 is in error, and is only included in the Apostolic Scriptures to give us an account of how they made that error. While we do not consider this to be the case, we are steadfast in our understanding that G-d’s Word is immutable. It does not change meaning as the culture or language around it changes. It means precisely today, what it meant in the ancient past – and it will mean the same for all of eternity.
Simone Martini, ca.1285-1344.
With 8 million copies already sold and still more still flying off the shelves, William Young's novel "The Shack" has clearly captured the imagination of a significant proportion of the Christian community.
The Shack is a novel about a man whose daughter was abducted by a serial killer at a holiday camping ground. As time draws on and the crime remains unsolved the man descends into depression. He receives a note inviting him to meet at the Shack with "Papa." Aware that this is his wife's nickname for God, he wonders whether or not this is someone's idea of a sick joke.
Yet still intrigued, he takes advantage of his wife's weekend away to investigate. There, at the Shack, he meets three apparitions who represent themselves as God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son.
The novel sets up what every Christian must secretly desire, the opportunity for a one-on-one interview with God, to ask any question that has ever puzzled the believer. It's in the answers to these questions that the book has its power.
The book conveys a sense of God's all-encompassing and heartwarming love for mankind and leaves the reader with a greater sense of love for community and acceptance of diversity. Both are important things to consider in the Western world as society adapts to new technological modes of interaction which reduce face to face engagement and relaxed immigration policies have allowed new ethnic groups to grow in different societies. In this sense, the book goes some way towards breaking down racial and religious intolerance.
The Shack has fuelled considerable controversy because of its positions regarding the nature of God, Humanity, Sin, Salvation and the Bible.
On God and Humanity, it takes an egalitarian view of the Trinity and rejects the hierarchical order of authority traditionally held by Orthodox Christians. In Young's Trinity, God the Father has no authority over God the Son. He goes further to say that the believer is meant to join the circle of relationship as an equal partner. The reader has to put aside the idea that "no one can see God, and live." Some of the ideas seem very similar to the now discredited Agnostic teachings.
On Sin, he rejects the concept of God's punishment (p119). He likens sin to a disease which needs to be cured. Certainly sin brings its own calamity but that does not mean that God himself does not inflict punishment. The image of God as a judge who passes sentence for certain is a prominent concept.
On Salvation, Young gives the impression that everyone has already been saved through the work of Christ and God is but waiting for everyone to accept it. A form of universalism.
On the Bible, Young rejects the idea that God has stopped overtly communicating with His people, leaving the Bible (p63) as the sole source of contemporary revelation. He is correct but does not then go on to add that the bible disciplines these communications by providing a standard by which they can be authenticated (1Th 5.7, 1Jn 4.1).
There is a lot more in the book but this should be sufficient to suggest that The Shack should be read guardedly. Few things or people are wholly good or bad. This is one book that needs some sifting.
Don't let anyone try to deflect serious discussion of this book by saying its a work of fiction. Using a dialogue between fictional characters as a means to convey a treatise on philosophy or some other subject of academic study is an age-old format. Plato, Aquinas and Abelard all used it. The Shack deserves to be treated seriously.
In the end the Shack is a great book to challenge modern readers to check if the concepts conveyed in the Shack are authenticated by the Bible and open up a new way for Christians to engage with one another in discussion and debate.
Prov 18.17
"GETHSEMANE, The Hour Is Near" by Anthony Falbo
This recently came in from a friend of mine; I post it here for future reference:
I came across this free PDF file study on Galatians on the www.bereansonline.org So far I have just looked at the initial chapters which set the historical context of the letter to the Galatians. These chapters are particularly insightful with respect to the "18 Articles" which were issues of contention between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, prior to the incarnation of Christ but carrying on into 1 Century Judaism even up to the destruction of the temple. I think that a re-reading the gospels/apostolic scriptures against the backdrop of the debate around these 18 Articles, regarding Gentile/Jew relationships, will clarify many of the passages that are used to support anti-nominism and could be a helpful piece in the puzzle of reconstructing faith. It seems to me that many 1st Century Jewish believers needed a paradigm shift, away from the influence of these 18 articles. Hence the thrust of Paul's letters was against the 18 articles and not against the Torah. (Paul talks in Romans 14 about 'disputable matters'. He wouldn't have seen the Biblical kosher standards, and festivals as disputable matters.) You might want a look-see into it.
She also subsequently sent me this link with additional discussion regarding the 18 articles.
Chagall - Abraham and the three angels The view that Rabbinic religion was a religion of legalistic works-righteousness in which a man was saved by fulfilling more commandments than he committed transgressions I have argued is completely wrong: it proceeds from theological presuppositions and is supported by systematically misunderstanding and misconstruing passages in Rabbinic literature.
These Jews should be treated with sharp mercy, their synagogues set on fire with sulfure and pitch thrown in , their hosues destroyed, They are to be herded together in stables... Their prayer books, their Talmud, and their Bibles are to be taken from them. Their rabbis are to be forbidden on pain of death to give instructions, to praise God in public, and to pray to him.... Their money and jewelry, gold and silver, are to be taken from them since everything they possess has been stolen through usury.Shocking stuff. Written in 1534 and repudiated by the Lutheran Assembly of America in 1993.Martin Luther.
This is from B H Young's "Paul the Jewish Theologian"pp 81-82:In large measure, Paul's use of the word righteousness is the source of the differing interpretations [regarding faith and works]. Luther understood it in the sense of the German word Gerechtigkeit, meaning "justification," or a position of right standing before God. I believe that this interpretation does not adequately deal with Paul's employment of the term in numerous contexts.In fact, Paul would feel that he has been grossly misunderstood if the righteousness of God is interpreted to mean only a state of justification. Paul's problem was a believers problem. How is it possible to experience God's redemption in everyday life? Paul clearly states that the believer is to become a "slave of righteousness" for obedience (Rom 6.17). When the force of Paul's message is grasped, Luther's views become unsatisfactory. His concept is too static. Righteousness is so much more than a state of justification.The life of righteousness is a dynamic experience! It is the power of God to live righteous lives of obedience. This is true redemption and salvation because it embraces the new life of following Jesus. As a path of salvation, the way of righteousness is experienced as a present reality that culminates in the Parousia. A supernatural strength enables the believer to participate in the redemptive movement -- the kingdom of God (Gal 5.21). For Paul, God's power is released through faith in Jesus.
Chagall - The Praying Jew 
The spiritual alienation from Israel is most forcefully expressed in the teaching of Marcion, who affirmed the contrariety and abrupt discontinuity between the God of the Hebrew bible and the God whom Jesus had come to reveal.
Marcion wanted a Christianity free from any vestige of Judaism. He saw his task as that of showing the complete opposition between the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels.
Although in the year 144 of the Christian Era the church expelled the apostle of discontinuity and anathematized his doctrines, Marcion remains a formidable menace, a satanic challenge. In the modern Christian community the power of Marcionism is much more alive and widespread than is generally realised...
According to Rudolf Bultmann (as summarized by Bernhard W Anderson), "for the Christian the Old Testament is not revelation, but is essentially related to God's revelation in Christ as hunger is to food and despair is to hope... The God who spoke to Israel no longer speaks to us in the time of the new Covenant." Here is the spiritual resurrection of Marcion. Was not the God of Israel the God of Jesus? How dare a Christian substitute his own conception of God for Jesus' understanding of God and still call himself a Christian!"
one thing i have seen throughout my life, is that people say things like open your mind to this or that, if i were to do this on a broad scale, i would go crazy because i wouldnt know where i stood on anything.
how then can we make a stand if everything is open to interpetation, and we open our minds to just about anything and everything?
will divorced and remaried people with living former spouces enter into the Kingdom of God or not?
will women who teach and preach enter into the Kingdom of God or not?
am i to allow the devil a chance to sway me doctrinally by opening my mind to his attacks?
in these last days i often want to throw up my hands and exclaim with Pilot, "what is truth"
opening her mind and listening to the serpant, is what got Eve in trouble and caused sin to enter into a world that was perfect before hand.
where and when do you draw the line between good and false doctrine?
in the 70's my generation opened their minds to "free sex" the occult, drugs and rebelous [sic] music, and the same old lie of satan was used back then about keeping an open mind, thats how the little foxes spoil the vine.
i heard a new phrase to me recentlyly about being so open minded that my brains would fall out.
if i stand for nothing wont i be in danger of falling for anything?
shall we allow the enemy of our soul the oppertunity to try and shoot holes in our faith, "the Truth" will stand on its own after we are dead and gone.
having an open mind, is what has allowed for gay clergy to minister the grace of God that has no heart breaking meaning for them. having an open mind is what allows many who call themselves christians to side with pro choice.
opening my mind to other possibilities, is as good as the enemy of my soul would have it, in his efforts to seduce me away from the truth and simplicity that is in Christ.
If Jesus had been open minded during His temptation in the wilderness, would he have passed His tests or comprimised with the devil?
How many new agers are saying that christians need to be open minded? should we be open minded about abortion? what about gay clergy should we be open minded about that? what about using aborted fetus'es for stem cell research or useing aborted baby collogen in make up products?
is there a line that we should not cross, and if so, how is that being open minded, and what of doctrine? should i open myself to catholic doctrine being a protestant? if i open my mind, am i not making an allowence that the new information could change my doctrinal stance?
for me, being open minded is what will pave the way for the one world church, that will embrace all religons including the occult and all of the eastern religons as well.
will calvinists and arminians reconcile their differences, concluding that both are right?
i just cant wrap my mind around all of this, sometimes i just wish i had died as a child before the age of accountability, so that i would be with Jesus and not had to deal with such confusion and conflicting ideologies.
our way is the truth, no our way is right your way is wrong, no listen to me i know the real truth, sometimes i wish i had never been born, i cant even find a church that still practises the old ways without all this new fangled music and serve god anyway you want to, cause its all good.
would to God i had died as a young christian, then i would be at peace not knowing the war that rages over what is truth and what is lie.
"Moses said to God: "Will not the time come when Israel shall have neither Tabernacle nor Temple? What will happen with them then?" The divine reply was, "I will then take one of their righteous men and retain him as a pledge on their behalf, in order that I may pardon all their sins." (Exodus Rabbah 35.4)
I am reading The God of Israel and Christian Theology by R.Kendall Soulen and found an interesting quote from Immanuel Kant (1793). Kant arguing for an 'enlightenment' understanding of religion, believes that Christianity's retaining the history of the Jews as an essential part of its doctrine, is absurd. He is quoted from his book p. 153 Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. While the intention of the quote is in support of Kant's argument, I think it is interesting in light of your comments about the Rabbi's (of Burbank?) understanding of Christian/Jew.
" [The] procedure {of appealing to the Jewish Scriptures}, wisely adopted by the first propagators of the teaching of Christ in order to achieve its introduction among the people,is taken as part of the religion itself, valid for all times and peoples, with the result that one is obliged to believe that every Christian must be a Jew whose Messiah has come. "(,italics in original )
Another thinker from another time and another place, and choosing another paradigm, has come to a very similar conclusion to that one which we are considering. Food for thought.
I mentioned in a previous blog that I was reading the "Rabbi from Burbank" by Isidor Zwirn and Bob Owen.
His story, in many respects, is a poignant one: After being rejected by his fellow Jews for becoming a Christian, he found it difficult to be understood by Christians as well.
One of the problems he found was that Christians would not, could not accept that they were not Gentiles.
"The church people of any denomination I had occasion to meet were all courteous and respectful to me... ...When I appealed to them to search out and discover their own biblical roots in Abraham and Judaism, my words fell upon deaf ears. I tried to tell the Christians that they were not goyim as defined by the Jews, a somewhat derisive term that means "heathen" or "pagan," but they would not hear me and continued to refer to themselves as Gentiles." [1]
Christians are Jews too?! Through the spirit of adoption, through the teaching on being grafted in, through being considered as Sons of God, Paul teaches that we are all a part of the Seed of Abraham. Thus we too inherit the Promises.
[1] Zwirn, R I and Owen, B (1987). The Rabbi from Burbank. Tyndale House Publishers. Illinois. Page 77.
See also Carpe Deo: "Who is a Jew?" Revisited (carpe-deo.blogspot.com)
