Priests v Prophets?

I recently bought Brown's "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" as a add-on product to Logos Bible Study Software [1].

Last year our minister preached a sermon that the Prophets argued that the Temple and its Sacrificial system of Atonement was unnecessary, instead repentance and prayer was sufficient.

Brown, presents a good essay rebutting this concept in Volume 2 of his work. The essence of his rebuttal is:

• The prophets were arguing against disengenuous worship, not an abandonment of God's commandments, which ordain the priestly order and prescribes the sacrificial system.
• Without genuine repentance from sin and heartfelt love for God, sacrifices and any other act of worship are worthless.

He cites many passages where the Prophets clearly articulated their reverence for the Temple and the work that God required there.

[1] Brown, M. L. (2000). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 2: Theological objections (71). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Who is a Gentile?

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)

Educating Children in the Scriptures

In our church our Children's Sunday School is little more than a baby sitting organisation. The children know very little of what is in the scriptures. They mostly play games and do arts and crafts work while the adults attend the church service in the main auditorium.

There are no (age appropriate) learning objectives, assessment or certification. In the West if we think something is important each of these elements of education one not only included, they are demanded. Why are they not required when it comes to the education of our children of the scriptures?

I have noticed that such education of our children is abrogated by Christian Parents who either do nothing or if it can be afforded, send then children to Christian schools.

I came across Isidor Zwirn's biography "The Rabbi from Burbank". He describes a similar malaise amongst some synagogues he attended. His story is invaluable for the many insights he brings to me as a Christian of a lifestyle centred in Torah Study and how it has an impact on worldview, family life, community and society.

After reading his story I am challenged to

• Study the scripture in their original languages
• Review the Weekly Parasha reading with my son.

He goes on to list several scripture study principals which I have thought useful for noting here:

• Respect another person's point of view: argue one's point with the goal of gaining understanding rather than acceptance.
• If several of you disagree on a matter of exegesis or biblical interpretation, we will record them all. Then every student will investigate each one of them. After you have done so, then every one of you is to select the one that best fits your own need, and take it as your own.
• Whenever two major views seem to contradict each other, you must temporarily set them aside, and hope that a third view will eventually be found that will harmonise the two.
• Whether truth comes from a male or female, Jew or Gentile, black or white, or even from the mouth of babes we are to accept it (see Deuteronomy 1.17, Psalm 8.2 or 8.3).
• Research (doresh) with integrity results in knowledge and insight (1 Chr 16.11, Isaiah 55.6, Psa 9.11, 34.5, 34.11, 69.33).
• Knowledge and insight, plus obedience results in God's rich rewards (Deu 28.13, Isa 29.9).

Worshipping on a Saturday

Some friends and I have been thinking of starting a Saturday worship service.

It is a little frustrating that Christian congregations that fellowship on a Saturday in Israel are not unusual and do not draw particular attention to themselves, whilst taking such an action here in the West would most likely draw criticism and the accusation of being legalistic.

Catholics chose Sunday as their main day of worship because it was considered to be the "Lord's Day" the day He was considered to be resurrected. To worship on the Sabbath i.e. Saturday was considered to be returning to the enslavement of the Law a process also embodied in the term to be "Judaised."

For worshipping on the Sabbath was considered a commandment only directed towards Jews (see Exodus 31.16-17). This argument is also supplemented by all the usual arguments against legalism (such as Romans 6:14; Colossians 2.16; Galatians 4:1-26).

In earlier blogs, we have argued that Christians misinterpreted Paul's views because these texts are inconsistent with Paul's practices; that he may have been trying to develop the idea of legalism as opposed to an appropriate observance of Torah; and that all Christians are a part of Israel through being "grafted in" and through Adoption.

Objections to Torah Observance: "The Torah is for Israel" Part 3

Becoming a Jew involves a three part process:

1. Circumcision; and



2. Being baptised; and



3. Observe the Torah.

Once they had undergone this tripartite ritual then the individual was considered a Jew. Over time, it came to be understood that one could not follow God and the Torah unless they had become a Jew through this process.


Yet according to the Scriptures, the Torah never says that circumcision converted one to be a Jew. It merely says that the alien (i.e. foreigner) is to be treated the same as a Jew and is not to be discriminated against.

Christians often object to observing the Torah because "that's Jewish" or "that's for the Jews."

This whole idea of ethnicity is a red herring. The real issue is not whether one should follow the Torah because they are a Jew; the real issue is what is the Scriptures requiring me to do as a Believer who wishes to love the Lord with all one's heart, mind and strength? If that means circumcision then so be it.

Language and Idiom

I'm a keen user of bible study software. I use a combination of Libronix' Logos 3.0, Wordsearch 7.0, and e-sword.

One of the things I have noticed particularly since studying the Talmud and other Jewish writings has been the extremely well developed original language tools. I have the Scholar's Library edition of Logos and the dictionary meaning of words and an analysis of how it has been translated in various parts of the bible are just a few clicks away. They are good, very good. However I recently came across by a book by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard called "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus".

Bivin was founder and director of the Jerusalem Perspective and number of the Jerusalem School Synoptic Studies a think tank with other Christian and Jewish Scholars. The book has been endorsed by notable Jewish scholar David Flusser. Blizzard Was adjunct assistant professor at the Centre for huddle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas, Austin.

Bivin and Blizzard point out that Jesus uses many Hebrew idioms in his everyday speech. Unfortunately idioms by their very nature are difficult to Understand outside their historical and cultural contexts. How can non-English speakers accurately translate phrases such as "let's get cracking", "I like the cut of his jib", or "sailing too close to the wind"? Similarly the English translator and reader of the Hebrew scriptures faces a similar challenge.

Unfortunately our early church fathers took a strongly anti-Jewish stance. So successful were they that by the time of Constantine church creeds included Vows to reject all the "Jewish" festivals, and even to avoid dining at the same able as a Jew. Needless to say with such thinking becoming widely held, a schism between Jewish and Gentile society became entrenched. Without contact with Jewish society, Christian theologians and translators toiled without even knowing that Jewish idioms were used by Jesus and attempt to infer the meaning of his Words; and as Bivin and Blizzard sadly illustrate, with sometimes absurd results.

I was interested to discover that the "good eye" and "bad eye" in Matthew 6.22-23 means a "generous heart" and a "miserly spirit" respectively. Yet I have encountered many a commentator's writings concerning the possible meaning of this passage, usually developing an explanation that differs markedly from the theme of generosity.

Did I say that the bible scholar is faced with a challenge in correctly translating scripture without the benefit of a thorough understanding of Jewish culture and idioms? I would venture to say that the task is impossible without contact with Jewish society and literature.

Bivin and Blizzard give a number of examples to illustrate their point. Here is one: "Set his face to..." and "his face was set toward..."(9:51) When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
(9:52) And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him;
(9:53) but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. (Luke 9.51-53)

Translators have read into this passage that Jesus had moments of misgivings or even doubts about going to Jerusalem. But the phrase he "set his face to go to..." and "his face was set to..." has no such connotation as Hebrew idioms . They should have been translated as "he was travelling to..."

Clearly the risk of error is great when translating outside of the Jewish context and therefore it would not be surprising to find theology based on studying flawed translations would also be in error.

They look at a number of theological positions that have gained prominence but in their opinion are built on mistranslations: Pacifism; Torah abrogation; giving without discernment; are all examples offered,

If even half were true, then many of the things we have taken for granted as accepted tenets of Christianity must be questioned.

-------------------------------
Uploaded with my Apple Newton

Written Torah and Oral Torah

In most legal systems, there is a written code of law and an accompany body of regulation that deals with situations not envisaged by the original statutes.

The English Common Law system is a good example. Parliament sets out the Statutes and the Judges develop common law principles and precedents that guide real-life application.

The Torah is structured in a similar way. It too has a written component, being the Pentateuch and establishes a hierarchy of courts of elders for adjudicating real-life situations, by applying the commandments. Over time, a system of rulings, precedents, and principles were developed. This has been captured by the Oral Torah and preserved in the Talmudic writings. The highest court of elders became known as the Sanhedrin in Christ's day.

As time passed, a system of principles were developed to resolve contradictions between different commandments; between commandments and Oral Torah rulings; and between different Oral Torah rulings.

For example, Oral Torah could never abrogate Written Torah. This principle is applied by Jesus in the dispute over Corban and the Commandment to honour one's father and mother (which had come to mean to provide for them in their old age). Another is the principle of preserving life as taking precedence over any other commandment. Jesus applies this principle when healing on the Sabbath. A third principle involves the infrequent taking precedence over the frequent. An example of this is illustrated when Yom Kippur (a fast) falls on a Sabbath (a feast). Since a Sabbath can be celebrated next week then the fast should be observed as it won't roll around for another year. Interestingly this principle was applied in attempting to rebut Jesus over Sabbath healing: "Why couldn't you have done it tomorrow?"

Thus many of the disputes between the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduccees and other religious leaders can be understood once this framework is grasped.

Unfortunately, the Oral Torah (idiomatically called the "yoke") became elaborate and complex. Rulings were made for almost every part of the minutiae of life. Jesus proclaimed a revisionist view of the Oral Torah (or Halachah), disputing with the Hebrew authorities that its complexity had created a barrier to salvation (Matthew 23.4, 13). This is what he meant in Matthew 11.28. His "Yoke" was light compared to the conventional "Yoke" of the day.

Interestingly, Jesus never disputed the Sanhedrin's right to make rulings (idiomatically called "binding and loosing"), in fact, he encouraged obedience to them (Matthew 23.1-3) but debated with them from within the framework of principles for resolving contradictions between the Commandments and/or Oral Torah rulings.

Thus if we believe in observing the Written Torah and the Written Torah establshes the authority of the hierarchy of courts and the creation of Oral Torah then we have to recognise the authority of Oral Torah. However Jesus' example shows us that we can abrogate the Oral Torah when it contravenes the framework for assessing how or if it should be applied.