Table Manners (a guide for servants)

.


This is kinda fun. From fellow Tangle user (formerly GodTube) Brother David Guard.

We read in John's account of the resurrection (ch 20:7) that whilst Yeshua's grave clothes were tossed aside, the cloth used to cover his face was carefully folded at the side of the slab where Yeshua lay.

Like me, a fundy who thinks no word or passage in the Bible is wasted, David explains an age-old, and well known Jewish tradition:

When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he made sure that it was exactly the way the master wanted it. The table was furnished perfectly, and then the servant would wait, just out of sight, until the master had finished eating, and the servant would not dare touch that table, until the master was finished. Now if the master was done eating, he would rise from the table, wipe his fingers, his mouth, and clean his beard, and would wad up that napkin and toss it onto the table. The servant would then know to clear the table. For in those days, the wadded napkin meant, 'I'm done'. But if the master got up from the table, and folded his napkin, and laid it beside his plate, the servant would not dare touch the table, because...

The folded napkin meant, 'I'm coming back!'


.

Don't be a prophet. Just share their faith...

.


Usually I think of more creative titles than that. And sorry, it's going to be long, as usual, because this is an interesting topic.

How much faith do you have...and in what? More importantly, could you have the faith of the prophets without trying to be one?

It should be no shock to anyone that I'm a Zionist. If you believe certain stereotypes you'll assume that I a) don't believe in a "two-state" solution b) think all Muslims are evil and must die, and c) constantly drop to my knees and implore God to wipe out Jordan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UN in a glorious fiery apocalypse.

It's none of that, and much more simple. I believe a) Israel's existence is not for political negotiation and, here's the crazy one;

b) Christians should be overflowing with joy at Israel's very existence.

I recently heard a presentation by New York Times bestselling fiction author Joel Rosenberg, who wrote several "political thrillers" (read; apocalyptic thrillers) which caused quite a stir in the US. For example, his novel of January 2001, The Last Jihad , had Islamic terrorists hijacking a passenger airline and flying it on a kamikhaze mission to Washington. Later in the novel a US president leads an unpopular war against Saddam Hussein. Well that's just spooky.

But then, his next novel The Last Days, had Yasser Arafat dying, the US putting pressure on Israel to leave the Gaza strip, and a US diplomatic peace convoy in Gaza being attacked by Islamists. Little over a year later, Arafat was dead, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, under pressure from the Bush administration, was pulling all Jewish prescence from Gaza, and a US peace convoy was attacked in...you guessed it, Gaza.

We were speaking about prophets, right? Well, that's not why I mention this fellow, whose novels are entertaining, scarily predictive, albeit rather plainly written (by his own admission).

It was the way he referred to the plethora of Old Testament prophecies stating, quite clearly, that Israel would be regathered to the land promised by God to Abraham, which got my attention. Previous manifestations of a "national" Israeli entity during OT times simply do not qualify as fulfilments of these numerous verses, for many reasons, among them Amos 9:15-

"I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them"

Amen! There are lots of other verses like this, declaring a glorious regathering. Lots and lots. Some of them are quite detailed. Those verses had been haunting Jews and Christians for 2,000 years. Here's what Rosenberg said:

The only document on the face of the planet for 2000 years that said that Israel would be reborn as a country, that Jews would come back to the Holy Land after centuries of exile...would by God's grace make the deserts bloom, would rebuild the ancient ruins, would have an exceedinly great army...and would occupy the epicentre of world attention....is the Bible.

And for centuries, critics and sceptics didn't believe that and many Christians did not believe that either. That's where replacement theology developed, because after 500 years of no Israel, 1,000 years, 1500 years...they were thinking, maybe we got those verses wrong. Maybe "Israel" really meant "The Church". 1,800 years go by and even the strongest believers would have thought...maybe we're wrong..."

At the risk of sounding picky, I will qualify the statement in bold: "Replacement Theology"is the idea that all promises to Israel, outlined in the Torah and Tanakh (our Olde Testament) were transferred to the Christian Church. This idea developed very early in our spiritual ancestors' history, with Church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Ignatius. In fact, some would argue it began as early as 60 AD, where Paul wrote to counter it's emergence in Romans 11:1-2, among other places:

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.



The early "Church" was Jewish. But when Titus crushed the Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD with a brutal assault in which the temple was destroyed (predicted by our Messiah in Matthew 24) it became dangerous to be Jewish. Then came emperor Hadrian's military decimation of the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD. He banished Jews (including believers in Yeshua) from Jerusalem, renamed the city Aelia Capitolina, and named the land Assyria Palestina (from which the name "Palestine" was derived in what could effectively be called a historic typo). He did this to completely anul all Jewish affection for the land, a public attempt to banish them physically and spiritually. Of course he didn't count that to attempt this, was to attempt to do battle with the God of the universe.

So, replacement theology crept in, partly because it was expedient for safety reasons to appear as non-Jewish as possible, but also because the emerging Gentile influence amongst believers was becoming hostile toward all things Jewish. Post Constantine and Augustine, it was all over. Keeping the sabbath was mocked, Passover was replaced by the inherently pagan Easter. Being Jewish was no longer simply illegal to Rome, it was illegal to The Church.

But I digress (just for something new). Joel Rosenberg's point is that Replacement Theology was either a symptom or cause of a massive lack of faith amongst believers. It was sadly predictable that the notion of the "Christian" God still caring for the remnant of Jews, those Christ-killers, was ludicrous. And, as such, those mountainous Bible verses boldly predicting the regathering of Abraham's physical descendents into the physical land, could not possibly be as they seemed.

You should never, ever, try to out-think God.

The Dresden Synagogue, one of the first to be torched during the Nazi Krystallnacht pogroms of 1938.

As a result we had the Christian Church in charge of Inquisitions, forced conversions, pogroms, the Czars of Russia massacres, and so much more. It culminated in a near universal Church silence as Jews in 1930's Europe began to disappear, after their synagogues were burned, while Hitler's intentions were so overtly clear. Oh, by the way, a historical tidbit to the above picture: As the synagogue lay a smoking ruin in November, 1938, a local street urchin walked past and yelled out to the dazed onlookers "This fire will return! It will do an about-face and come right back to us!"

7 years later, the Allies inflicted a horrific firebombing of Dresden, all but wiping out the old city in a 1,500 degree man-made firestorm, killing around 25,000 people. Were we talking about prophets?

Anyway, back to the church's sad theology leading to complicity in the holocaust: Perhaps I'm being unfair. We laud the heroic actions of Deitrich Boenhoffer and Corrie Ten Boom. Indeed we should. But there should have been 2,000 Boenhoffers. There should have been 10,000 Corrie Ten Booms.

I'm not trying to vilify the Church. I'm trying to point out what a lack of faith gets you. All this...and then in May, 1948, the nation of Israel was born within the very land God had ordained.

Let me tell you about a little-known man of great faith. His name is John Charles Ryle, former Bishop of Liverpool. He was interested in bringing as many people as possible into a faith in Jesus. His sense of urgency was driven by an appreciation of prophecy. He took God at His Word. He was particularly interested in the rebirth of modern Israel.

Who says I always hang it on Anglicans? A great man, was Bishop Ryle!

A collection of his sermons form a book called "Are you ready for the End Times?". Ignore for a moment that the title makes it sound like a shrill evangelical, Left-Behind style announcement of Jesus' imminent return, that Gog and Magog (also known in the internet age as Blog and Mablog) are arming and we must all sell our houses and get ready. It is actually a calm, pragmatic, humble and loving admonishment to take God's word seriously.

When Bishop Ryle didn't know what a prophecy meant, he said he didn't know:

"Much of the discredit which has fallen on prophetic study has arisen from the fact that many students, instead of expounding prophecy, have turned prophets themselves."

Indeed. But here's what he did know. First, on replacement theology:

We have gotten into a vicious habit of taking all the promises spiritually, and all the denunciations and threats literally. The denunciations against...the rebellious Jews, we have been content to take literally and hand over to our neighbours. The blessings and promises of glory to Zion, Jerusalem, Jacob and Israel, we have...comfortably applied them to ourselves and the Church of Christ.

This man of faith nails the very problems which replacement theology bred, this monstrous snowball born from lack of faith. He suggests that it's all well and good for us to insist of the Jew that they must accept Christ as their Messiah from various OT prophecies, BUT...

...suppose the Jew asks you if you take all the prophecies of the Old Testament in their simple literal meaning....Will you dare tell him that the glorious Kingdom and future blessedness of Zion...means nothing more than the gradual Christianising of the world by missionaries and gospel preaching? ...Do you not see that you are cutting the ground out from under your own feet, and supplying the Jew with a strong argument for not believing (in your messiah)?

Then he gets down to business, the literal regathering of Israel. He spoke of their condition prior to their regathering:

Though Israel has been scattered, they have never been destroyed...Romans, Danes, Saxons, Normans, Belgians, French and Germans have all in turn settled on English soil...have lost their national distinctiveness...But not so with the Jews. Dispersed as they are...there is a national vitality among them stronger than any nation on earth. Go where you will, this wonderful people is always the same.

He quotes from those rich passages that are so dear to us Zionists: Isaiah 11:11,12. Ezekiel 37:21. Hosea 1:11,3:4,5. Joel 3:20. Amos 9:14-15. Obadiah 1:17. Micah 4:6-7. Zephaniah 3:14-20. Zechariah 10:6-10. Jeremiah 30:3,11. Those passages, among others, which seem to have God saying to us "How many times must I tell you?", and yet are still dismissed as allegorical by so many claiming to be in His Body!

He then asks of the believer, is anything impossible for God?

I see no ground for refusing to believe that God may yet do wonderful things for the Jewish People. It would not be more marvellous to see them gathered once more into Palestine.

You see, Bishop Ryle was writing these sermons in the 1890's. And we, in this age, have been privileged enough to see exactly what Bishop Ryle longed for through faith.

He also made this powerful admonition;

(Do not)...for a moment suppose that the future gathering of Israel depends on anything that man can do...the promises of God concerning Israel will all be fulfilled in due season. Israel will be gathered; and all the alliances and combinations of statesmen, and all the persecution and unbelief of apostate churches, shall not be able to prevent it.

Amen, amen, and amen, Bishop Ryle! I can't wait to meet him in the Kingdom. We have so much to talk about.

This man warned against self-proclaimed prophets, yet sounded for all the world like a great prophet himself. But really, he was just a man of great faith. He paid attention. Are you?

Some legal issues

Or: "No problem with Paul".

One of my bents is that Christians, new or otherwise, run the risk of being fodder for the professional atheists of the world like Dawkins or Hitchens or conspiracy nuts like Dan Brown. There will always be claims of contradictions in the OT and the NT. Unless we understand why they appear so, but actually aren't, we'll struggle to explain our faith to anyone or worse, to ourselves.

Much of the Paulene letters look this way, one minute extolling the virtues of obeying the Torah and the next, appearing to downplay the Torah's importance. We need to understand not just the context, but the spiritual climate and audience to which he was speaking. Even Peter acknowledged that Paul's stuff was a little tricky to understand (2 Peter 3:16).

Those who are uncomfortable with the idea of the Torah being relevant to modern Christians often cite those very parts of Paul's letters which place less emphasis on the Torah. Here's some examples:

Romans 10:4, “Messiah is the end of the Law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”

This is my favourite bad Bible translation! In English, "end" can mean "finish, no more, kaput" etc. It can also denote a conclusion or completion, i.e. my hand is on the end of my arm. That doesn't mean I no longer have an arm. The Jewish Bible translation has that verse as "For the goal at which Torah aims is Messiah". Much better!

By the way, you can tell the serious Bible scholars: they're the ones who spend more time arguing about which is the better translation than, say, about the seriousness of divorce or something. But I digress. What would one of my rants be without a good digression?

Ephesians 2:15-16: “Having abolished in His flesh the enmity that is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two thus making peace. And that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.”

This is used as another "Jesus abolished the Law" passage, but not so. The only way you can twist that is to substitute the word "enmity" with"Torah". The enmity referred to here is clearly a literal one- alienation, antagonism, separation... between Jew and non-Jew. Because earlier in that same chapter it says:

Ephesians 2:12-13 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Near to what? The Commonwealth of Israel. Chosen by YHWH. It's saying that Yeshua's death brought us into the Law.

Colossians 2:13-15. “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross ”

This is often assumed to mean that The Torah was nailed to the cross with Yeshua. It's a dodgy interpretation at best. Firstly, the Torah was given to alert us to our sin. It's like a spotlight. It doesn't save us, it warns us that we need saving. Secondly, some historical context:

In those times, when you were jailed for a crime(s) there was kept a written list of things you'd done for which you were jailed. It also included the terms of your incarceration. Somebody had to pay for these crimes with the exact terms of the incarceration. If the prisoner escaped, the jailer had to finish off those terms. (This explains why Paul's jailer was about to off himself after the earthquake which opened the cell doors in Acts 16:27.)

When the sentence was completed, the list of ordinances was marked with the word (in Greek) tetelestai. In that context it meant "paid in full". This is from where we derive the term "he's paid his debt to society".

This word comes from the root tele'o which means "it is finished". Do those words sound familiar?

Okay, back to our legal issues.

Colossians 2:16-17, "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,: which are a SHADOW of things TO COME but the substance is of Christ."

Well that smacks me on the wrist for caring about the feasts! Or maybe not. First of all, observe the tense. ARE a shadow of things TO COME. ARE is in Greek este (similar to modern Latin based languages such as Spanish, Italian and Portuguese) and it is a clearly defined present tense. This is just as much referring to the second coming of Messiah as the first, which happened before this book was written. Perhaps it refers to both that which happened and that which is yet to happen, but by no means does it abrogate the importance of the feasts.

To be really contentious I'm going to quote one of my favourite Bible commentators from the 18th century, Matthew Henry:

...but here the apostle shows that since Christ has come, and has cancelled the ceremonial law, we ought not to keep it up...to continue the ceremonial observances, which were only types and shadows of Christ and the gospel, carries an intimation that Christ has not yet come and the gospel state has not yet commenced. Observe the advantages we have under the gospel, above what they had under the law: they had the shadows, we have the substance.

Matthew Henry is a classical commentator and I would safely suggest that much seminary-based theology derives from his ilk. I love his stuff generally but he has no doubt been influenced by post-Constantine theology which was at times extremely anti-Jewish (this explains a few problems with seminary based theology). In any case I completely disagree with Sir Henry at least for the inappropriateness of his wording if not the whole implication: Sure, the ceremonial sacrifices can rightly be viewed as Henry does. They are done away with and completed by Yeshua, chronologically speaking.

But the verse talks about festivals, sabbaths and dietary requirements. The Festivals, for example, are YHWH's "appointed times", which He asked us to keep. Secondly, they are vital prophetic events marking different points on YHWH's timeline for the redemption of humankind. Not all the events pointed to by each feast have happened yet.

A surprised-looking Matthew Henry

Another point about this, albeit slightly anecdotal, is that shadows don't exist without the substance which casts it. A shadow results from light being shone on the substance. Wouldn't you love to be in the shadow of the Messiah?

Besides, a few verses later it says

Colossians 2:20-22 ...why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordinances, "Don't handle, nor taste, nor touch", (all of which perish with use), according to the precepts and doctrines of men?

This is clearly warning against following the doctrines of men, not an instruction to avoid Torah. An elementary piece of advice, one would think. Overall, these passages admonish believers not to not judge other believers on their observance of the holy days (or not) whilst still acknowledging their importance. Remember, according to Isaiah 66 and Zechariah 14, these holy feasts will be celebrated in the reign of Messiah on earth! Sounds like fun...if you've ever seen a Sukkot celebration .

Romans 7:4-6, “So, my brothers, you also died to the Law through the body of Messiah, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the Law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”

Again, this is my whole point; if Paul really means from this that we may now totally disregard the Law (Torah) , this his writings, and indeed the whole Bible, are confused, contradictory and we may as well become humanists. It also shows how much of a bummer the chapter breaks can be, given they were inserted so much later. A few verses later in chapter 8, Paul speaks of the "Law of Sin and Death". That's the "Law" he's talking about here in verse 6. Note this means we have been released from the consequences of sin and death, not freed from the events of sin and death themselves.

Lastly, this, which I happen to think is extremely helpful (just like the Torah!):

Acts 15: 19-21 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

We quickly notice the first bit but are slow to understand the second. It simple; let's not scare people away from Yeshua's saving grace by telling them they have to wear funny coloured tassles and can't eat yummy bacon or shrimp. But every Sabbath they can hear the Law preached in the synagogue (remember that "Christianity" began in synagogues) . Then throughout their faith walk they should hopefully grow in knowledge of what is pleasing to God.

Is that any different to today? We can't stay babes in Christ forever, suckling on the milk of grace whilst letting the heart stay where it is- loving what the world loves instead of what God loves.

My little exercise here might seem a little antagonistic but it highlights the challenges of Paul's ministry. One moment he was dealing with extreme legalists who tried to tell new believers they had to be circumcised to be saved (ouch), the next he was dealing with hideously liberal anti-Jewish types who went out of their way to ignore YHWH's Law, and who were grounded in pagan idolatry.

Basically, Paul had the same problem then as we have now.

Here's another reason why appreciating the Torah is a well-considered choice:

(Yeshua said:) "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher". Luke 6:40


.

Dedicate yourself!

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6

This is a study on Chanukkah. Or Hanukkah (the English spelling of Hebrew words is nothing to stress over, apparently). It's that time of year when Christians (and pagans) celebrate Christmas and Jews celebrate Hanukkah. Back when I was ignorant I used to think that Hanukkah was just something the Jews cooked up to match Christmas so they wouldn't feel left out of the end of year festive feeling. But I digress. You're probably wondering what that verse from Proverbs has to do with Chanukkah. Hanukkah. Whatever.

I'll get to that.

Hanukkah is also known as the "Festival of Lights", or the "Feast of the re-dedication of the Temple". It's not a Biblical feast or high holiday as per Leviticus, in other words it wasn't a feast ordained by YHWH to Moses. However, it is mentioned in the Bible and in fact Yeshua attended the feast, mentioned in John 10 v22. It is Biblically verified. In fact, a study of Hanukkah is a journey of Biblical cross-referencing taking you from the early Kings to Daniel to Ezra and Nehemiah. It's a real trip, and I will try to skim over some of it here.


It centers around the Jewish temple. The first one was built by Solomon, evidence of which is constantly being dug up around the Temple Mount in Israel today. We find this in 1 Kings 6 through to 8, where Solomon dedicates the Temple. This Temple was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in around 590 BC, these events being outlined in 2 Kings 25. The same events are mentioned elsewhere, with extra details added, in 2 Chronicles 36, and Jeremiah 52. Basically, Jeremiah tried to warn the kings of Israel at the time not to rebel against the Babylonian king. They ignored him, and got hammered. They kept doing this until Nezzer got so jacked off with it all he decimated Jerusalem and the Temple.

Then we find the man of whom no evil is spoken, and one of the most amazing careers in the Bible besides Joseph; the prophet Daniel. Daniel oversaw a few regime changes in Babylon, one of the final ones being the famous King Cyrus. In an incredible series of events, Cyrus was supernaturally lead to not only allow the captive Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, he sponsored them to do so. The Jewish historian Josephus tells us that an elderly Daniel greeted Babylon's new king Cyrus by handing him a scroll from Isaiah, written over a century earlier, which mentioned him by name, namely Isaiah 44:27-28, and 45:7.

Who says to the deep, 'Be dry! And I will dry up your rivers';
Who says of Cyrus, '[He is] My shepherd, And he shall perform all My pleasure, Saying to Jerusalem, "You shall be built," And to the temple, "Your foundation shall be laid."

And Isaiah 45:1
Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

You see, Cyrus dammed the river Euphrates to lower the water levels to get under Babylon's rather impressive defenses. Then he just strolled in through the main gates without a fight. This old prophecy clearly got his attention, as it would. It called him by name.

The famous Cylinder of Cyrus (British Museum), containing references to him allowing conquered tribes to return to their homelands and preserve their cultures

So the Jews returned and rebuilt their Temple, although not without incident, but that's another story. They even took back the spoils which Nebuchadnezzer had ransacked. This is all outlined in the book of Ezra. In Daniel 9, a tour de force of Messianic prophecy, Daniel is informed by the Angel Gabriel that Jerusalem and it's walls would also be rebuilt. These events came to pass, described in the book of Nehemiah.

Jump forward to around 168 BC under the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes IV. This nasty piece of work almost succeeded in destroying Judaism, but YHWH wouldn't have it. Besides burning copies of the Torah, making public Torah reading punishable by death, and so on, he drew the final straw by sacrficing a sow in the holy Temple, and erecting a statue of Zeus there.

The son of a Jewish priest by the name of Judah Maccabee ("the Hammer") inspired a national revolt, and they overthrew the Syrian despot and his empire. They were then able to re-dedicate the Temple, destroying all the defiled articles and replacing them. This was done on the 25th Kislev, 164 BC. This is the celebration of Chanukkah.

Hanukkah in Melbourne

Note, the Jewish communities do not celebrate their military victories. They are celebrating the regaining of the holy Temple.

Here's another digression in this tangled spaghetti of inter-related Bible cross references, and one which should be very important to us: Yeshua has a private little discussion with some disciples who were curious about how to identify the "end times" in Matthew 24. In verse 15-16 He says:

"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation', spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...

In other words, that's when things will start to get ugly, at the occurrence of this "event" spoken of by the prophet Daniel. It was yet future. Yet the only thing regarded as truly abominable by Jews, the desecration of the holy place, had happened in 168 BC. This was a "dress rehearsal", so they could be absolutely sure about what YHWH was telling them.

Some will argue that the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD qualifies as most of the "end times" events Yeshua discussed in Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation. These arguments obviously have merit but we cannot escape the fact that in 70 AD Titus Vespasian simply destroyed the Temple. He didn't have time to go offending his victims by desecrating their most holy place with an abomination as spoken of by the prophet Daniel. This may sound like a triviality but I happen to think Yeshua did not speak trivialities. The Roman Legions burned the Temple to the ground, dismantled every stone and made off with the golden ornaments. No room for pagan niceties.

The Arch of Titus in Rome depicts the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD, here showing the soldiers carrying off the Menorah

The point is, there are several connections we need to make to this festival which, although not ordained by YHWH amongst the Levitical feasts, is clearly intended as a pointer to some vital issues for us as Christians.

So what has the Proverbs verse at the head of this post got to do with Chanukkah?

For "train up" the Hebrew word is "chanak", upon which "Chanukkah" is built. It doesn't only mean teach. It means "to dedicate, inaugurate". Think about the purpose of Chanukh- to clean out the defilement, rid of all abominations, refurbish with new furniture, then celebrate the newness!

Yep, Chanukkah has a lot to do with us Gentiles. Merry Christmas!


.

TORAH: Abolished, replaced or fulfilled?

As most of you homies know, this is my bent: Grace and Law. Without trying to sound too wordy I happen to believe we Christians have them in nervous tension when we should be recognising the harmony.

For those who don't know, Torah is the first five books of the "OT" and means "law, direction, instruction". You may now go and sit in the corner.

Here's a creative little anecdote which asks of us a question which, at some point in our faith walk, needs answering. I give a very big hat-tip to Judah Himango for his work on this, I happen to think it's brilliant. I've added my own spin in parts.

Imagine you are unfortunate enough to land yourself in front of a religious court, say, approximately similar to the one Yeshua stood in front of. They are accusing you of publically speaking against the Torah and consider this to be a crime warranting a serious punishment.

Firstly, is the accusation true? If so, does it matter? Judah takes it up:

... you think back to all those times you chided your Jewish friends, “God doesn’t care whether we keep that old ugly Law anymore, so don’t worry, share this Easter ham dinner with me.”

You remember the times you told people how Jesus is all about grace, and not at all about law or those people who try to be saved by works. “Nobody can follow the law perfectly, so I’m not even gonna try!” was your old mantra.

Quietly in your mind you concede that, yes, I have spoken against the Torah, but it’s because Jesus abolished it. Paul said so.

You flip over to Acts 6 and 7, remembering the story of Stephen, a man in the same predicament as yourself. You begin to read aloud the 2 millennia-old charges against Stephen...

One foolish Jew from the council responds, “What was Stephen’s defense? How did he justify his speaking against Torah?”

You read on to discover Stephen didn’t actually speak against Torah. To your surprise, Stephen recites the Torah to his accusers, upholding it as righteous, and even chides his accusers for not keeping the Torah.

Whoops.

Regaining your composure, you sheepishly respond, “Stephen’s defense was reciting the Torah and upholding it. He ended his defense by chiding his accusers for disobeying the Torah.

But you see, foolish Jews, I am not like Stephen.”

Embarrassed by your self-prosecution, you search your thoughts and remember the same thing was spoken against Paul. Ah, yes! Paul! A Christian theologian’s favorite apostle! We can show how Paul put the Torah down low and and still defended himself!

You flip over a few pages to show that this same accusation was made against Paul. You read (it) aloud to the court,

A teacher of the Law responds, “What was Paul’s defense? How did he justify his speaking against the Torah?"

You read on to discover Paul didn’t actually speak against the Torah, and to prove it, even took a Nazirite vow in Jerusalem according to the commandment! Shoot, strike two!

You humbly reply, “Paul’s defense was upholding and practicing the Torah in the sight of the whole community.

But you see, teachers of the Law, I am not like Paul.”

Things are looking down for you, but not to worry, you have an ace up your sleeve. “My dear friends, don’t you know your ancestors accused the Christ of the very thing you accuse me? You put me on trail and repeat history. Yet the Christ is the source of all righteousness!”

One of the dear friends responds, “What was Messiah’s defense? How did he justify speaking against the Torah?”

You read on to discover Messiah didn’t actually speak against the Torah. Instead, he rebuked his accusers for missing the important matters of the Torah!

You respond to the court and concede it: “Messiah upheld the Torah and chided the Pharisees for not keeping the important matters of the Torah.

But you see, dear friends, I am not like Messiah.”

I wish I could leave it there to let the effect of that sink in. (Meaningful pause). But obviously there is a little perspective required here. In Matthew 5:18-48 Yeshua gives a detailed, yet seemingly conflicting analysis of our required attitude to the law, commencing with Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:18).

Yet in Acts 21:25, following Paul's vow, it says As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

There's a whole study in that one verse, where the "requirements" for Gentile obedience were made distinct from the Jewish ones. We'll do that at a later time if you're all really good. But the point here is that a choice was available to everyone, Jews and Gentiles. It's just that Jews, whether believers in Yeshua or not, simply cannot consider turning their backs on YHWH's law because they are so incredibly attuned to it. They even find delight in it . Read Psalm 119 and pick up the theme. Here's some cherry pickings:

How happy are those...who live by the Torah of Adonai! (v1)
I rejoice in the way of your instruction (v14)
I find delight in your regulations (v16)
...your instructions are my delight (v24)
For I take pleasure in it (v35)
For Your Torah is my delight (v77)

You get the idea. Either the Psalmist was on some suspicious mushrooms or he really got the idea of Torah.

only someone who takes delight in Torah would build a Sukkah in a boat!

I've digressed slightly but I really wanted to demonstrate the reality that YHWH's law is meant for our good, and nothing else. But here's the thing; we are not "under the law" inasmuch as we are not under the judgements and punishments of the law. We are not subject to these. That's what Yeshua dealt with on the cross.

Check out Leviticus 20. I won't dissect it here but it's all about what makes a person "cut off from their people", i.e. YHWH's people. That includes us now. It deals with the worst of idolatry (Lev 20:1-8) important relationships (v9) sexual immorality (v10-21), and those things which make us unclean (v25-26). The punishments are listed. We read them now with the knowledge that we are spared. But we read the admonitions with the knowledge that they are there to set us apart, sanctified and holy (v 26).

This might sound like a cheap analogy, but the calling is not to simply walk around with a WWJD T-shirt on. It's to ask yourself; "what does my life say about the God who I profess?". That's Torah. Yep, there is a lifetime on the study of this issue. So I will be writing more on this, you betcha.


.

THE BIG INTERSECTION

What with all the politics flying around recently the inevitable question of how Christians should vote always comes up. The debate will usually end up over whose preferred nominee is more Christian.

Firstly, try not to care too much. Do we really want to see a Christian in charge, or Christ in charge? Certainly we are without excuse when it comes to being informed about politics and who's policies fit our Christian mould. We have the internet, so we can turn off the TV, stop listening to the news, ABC, SBS, MSNBC, David Letterman and Rove live and instead...get properly informed. But even then, Christians can, will, and should disagree at times, or choose to remain blissfully ignorant of the details (I am quite envious of such people!).

However, and this one is non-negotiable, we must pray for whoever is elected and remember that they are not there without the permission of YHWH (although, that isn't to be taken as an endorsement!).

There have been reams of stuff written on the intersection of faith and politics, because the two inevitably collide somewhere. So, is Jesus a democrat or republican? Is he socialist or capitalist? Left or right?

Hopefully neither. Probably the most used quote on this topic is Matt 25:31-46, the famous "sheep and goats" judgement. It can be as difficult to decipher as the equally famous "Olivet discourse" in the previous chapter (so, are you pre-trib, post-trib, pan-trib, a-millenial, pre-millenial, post-millenial with a touch of part-preterism?) Okay, we'll leave that alone for now.

...for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I [was] naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' (Matt 25: 35-36)

and

And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did [it] to one of the least of these My brethren, you did [it] to Me.' (v 40)

and I can't resist this one;

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: (v41) There you have it. Verse 41 confirms that those on The Left are going to hell. Study over.

Okay, seriously now... these verses seem fairly clear cut. We must care for the poor and overlooked. The Jesus who admonishes us to care for the poor, the downtrodden, and "the least" is certainly popular both within and without the church. The question is, do those who love the social-justice Jesus do so because it's popular, or because it's scriptural? YHWH sees the intent of the heart.

There are other instructions and actions of Yeshua which support this calling to care for the poor. The most noteable is Luke 18:18-22, where He says to the ruler So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."(v22)

and

And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! (v24).

Again, it looks quite simple. If you've got money and don't give it to the poor, you won't be saved.

Well, not quite. Yeshua first challenged him to answer to some commandments, namely: Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. He seemed to pass those ones, but Yeshua knew exactly what the young guy's problem was; he was addicted to wealth. So He saved "Love the Lord thy God" and re-worded it by calling on him to love God more than wealth. Not all of us have that problem. Most, but not all.

But even more challenging that that, is this, the very same Yeshua, in Luke 7:38, Matt 26:7, Mark 14:7 and John 12:3-8- I use John 's account as it's the most telling;

Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], who would betray Him, said, "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.

But Jesus said, "Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always."

Apparently 300 denarii was around 1 years' salary to the lower classes. Would you buy Yeshua our Messiah a gift worth over $50,000? Okay, don't answer that. But this does strike a contrast to the "purely social-justice gospel". In the same way, Yeshua's "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt 5:9) seems to stand well apart from "Do not think I have come to bring peace, I did not come to bring peace but a sword" (Matt 10:34)



All of these statements must be viewed as part of a whole. I like to call it a "hierarchy of order", although I'm sure there is already a seminary-based term for it (probably ending in the suffix "ology"). It's almost as if YHWH is telling us "This is important, but so is this. They may sound contradictory but between you and Me we will work out how to balance them in your life".

If we didn't view it that way, then we have no choice but to give up to the professional atheist elitists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and other quasi-intellectuals who assure us that YHWH's word is full of contradictions. No. There are no contradictions. There are no abrogations (as with Islam). There is a hierarchy. There is Law, and there is a heart of The Law.

There are those who cite the 6th commandment Thou shalt not kill to oppose military service for Christians. But the wording is Thou shalt not murder (Ex 20:13). This is the same God who endorsed capital punishment and the extermination of many pagan tribes of Canaa, yet who despises the shedding of innocent blood (Deu 19:9-13, Jer 22:3 et al). We'd be fodder for the atheist industry unless we understand the whole picture. It just takes a bit of study and a lot of prayer.

Let's go back to John 12:3-8. The poor you will always have with you. This was not giving us permission to keep poor people poor. Much like "I have come not to bring peace but a sword" was not a licence to go out and kill people who don't accept Jesus. It was a statement of fact and prophetic reality, seen by the all-seeing creator of time and space, who knows the end from the beginning (Isa 46:10). Mark's gospel elaborates on Yeshua's words:

For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always. (Mark 14:7) Indeed.

But you have to love John's Gospel. He wrote long after the fact, after having time to reflect on his memories. From the opening line of his gospel you can see he was a mystic, finding Messiah in every aspect of YHWH's first testament and finding meaning in so many seemingly trivial aspects of the Saviour's life, seeing connections between every detail. That's why I like to do the same.

So, note that in John's account, unlike the other gospel writers, he tells us who complained about the extravagance of the woman anointing Yeshua's feet: Judas.

Judas was the Zealot. He was a Judean, who considered himself more sophisticated than those Galilean hillbillies. He was one of many who looked to Messiah to overthrow the Roman occupation after turning everyone back to YHWH through signs and wonders. Foremost in his mind was the reality of the injustice of their Roman rulers over his kinsfolk. You might say he was heavily into social justice.

And Yochanan (John) was considerate enough to tell us that This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; See the problem here? It looks like Judas was complaining about the very area in which he had weakness.

You see, if it was up to us, we'd pick whatever "social cause" fits our pre-existent prejudices and hide behind Jesus to justify it. That's why He gave us Torah. Not so that we can get on a power trip and stone the first person we know has commited adultery, but to learn YHWH's heart for a situation and understand how it directs us to conduct our lives.

Besides, the "social justice Jesus" does not always render a solution for all of life's challenges or callings. If we limit "the least of these" to simply the materially poor, then we limit Yeshua to a saviour who only cares about the materially poor. I don't think Yeshua was in the least bit interested in material wealth. The only kind of poverty He was concerned with was spiritual poverty. The only kind of oppression He cared about was those oppressed by sin. Which is....all of us, regardless of class or circumstance.



I can't resist quoting the "What would Jesus Do?" cult here. Not many people actually know the answer to that question in their respective situations. I don't either, but I can give you a clue: Jesus was a Torah Observant Jew. If you want to know WWJD, start by learning the Torah.




.

YESHUA’S BIRTHDAY- When and where? I mean really?

I promise to have something on this blog to offend everybody. Here's something which might be a real challenge. Sure, everybody knows Jesus wasn't born December 25th. But how much are we prepared to acknowledge?

Starting with John the Baptist

It all starts with the official end to the "Old Testament" (I prefer to call it the "first Testament"), Yochanan the Immerser. Luke 1 explains that his Dad Zacheriah’s priesthood was in the “course of Abijah” (Luke 1:5). 1 Chronicles 24:10 explains that the course of Abijah is the eighth week of the Hebrew year. But before we count 8 weeks into the Hebrew year, which puts it around the beginning of the third Hebrew month of Sivan, there’s a couple of curve balls:

Deut 16:16 specifies that all males are to attend the Temple for a week for each of the festivals Pesach, Shavout, and Sukkah. The Rabbis took this to mean that all 24 Levitical Priests from the surrounding districts attended the temple as per Deut 16:16 as well as their normal course of priesthood as per 1 Chronicles 24:10. This would have put Zak’s priestly term into the tenth week of the year (two weeks already added due to Pesach and Shavout). Counted from the first month of the religious year, Nisan (Ex 12:2) this would put Zak’s term at around the 10th of Sivan.

In Luke 1:13 Zak was burning incense and offering prayers for the people (Ps 141:12) when the angel appeared and said “your prayer has been heard”. What prayer? According to Rabbinical tradition, all priests would have prayed that Elijah would come, according to Malachi 4:5. Let’s have a quick look at that:

Elijah came?

There was a belief that Eliyahu (Elijah) would return to herald the coming of Messiah: Malachi 4:5, Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. Of course, we would recognise this to be prior to the second advent of Messiah. “Great and dreadful day of the LORD (Adonai)” denotes judgement, not the sacrifice and redemption. How do we know this? Well, because of history, but also because Yeshua confirms it:

Remember when Yeshua read from Isaiah 61 in the synagogue (Luke 4:18-19) "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; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,” and then BAM! He stopped right there, in the middle of a sentence, saying “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." If you go to the verse in Isaiah, you see the rest of the sentence reads: “And the day of vengeance of our God”; Yeshua was implying that only the first part of that sentence was being fulfilled.

Also, in Matthew 17:10-13, the disciples ask “Why do the Torah teachers say Elijah must come first?” and Yeshua confirms that he had, in John the Baptiser. This is important, as it eludes to a strong Rabbinical tradition that Elijah would come at Passover. This tradition is held today, in every Jewish home celebrating the Passover Seder, they leave a chair empty for Elijah, and sometimes the kids are told to run to the door and wait for him.

Well folks, perhaps he did come at Passover!

Back to Zak in the Temple: The angel told him his son would be in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). Since Luke 1:23 & 24 tells us that at the end of his course (Abijah) he went home and presumably, um, re- consummated their marriage this would put the conception of John at the feast of Shavout (Pentecost) which is the second week of Sivan. It was possibly a little later since Levitical Laws regarding women’s purity (Lev 12:2) meant Zak and Liz may have abstained for a week after his Temple service. Adding 9 months to this would put John’s birthday at Passover.

Mary’s Angel

Next up, Miriam (Mary) gets her visitation in the sixth month of Liz’s pregnancy (Luke 1: 26). This would put it around the 25th of Kislev which, interestingly enough, is Chanukah, the feast of the rededication of the Temple which, like Sukkah, is also called The Festival of Lights. The Light of the World was conceived during the festival of lights! If we accept this, then counting 9 months beyond that we arrive at Tishrei 15th, the first day of the Feast of Sukkot. Apparently, according to early Rabbinical tradition, Miriam’s dialogue with Gabriel is part of Sukkot prayers. Further to this, the words "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace on whom His favour rests" also appear in very early Jewish Sukkot prayers, which is what the angels said to the shepherds in Luke 2:14. Oh yes, they also said they were bringing tidings of great joy. One of the names of Sukkot is the "Festival of Great Joy".

It also means that Yeshua was circumcised on the 8th day, as per Lev 12:1-3. The eighth day of Sukkot is called Simchat Torah, or “rejoicing in Torah”. In Luke 2:25, when Yeshua was brought to the Temple for circumcision, both Simeon and Anna rejoiced greatly in what they had seen. Yeshua, after all, is the fulfilment of Torah. (Rom 10:4)

So what is Sukkot?

You shall dwell in booths for 7 days, all who are native Israelites will dwell in booths. That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am Adonai. (Lev 23:42-43)

“Sukkot” means “booths”, specifically a temporary dwelling. Like all the festivals it has several layers of meaning, historical (Lev 23:43), agricultural (v 39) and spiritual (v 36-38). Historically it is to commemorate their wandering in the wilderness and dwelling in tents, whilst God provided for them. As distinct from Yom Kippur five days earlier, it is a time of great joy and celebration. Today, it’s a great time to be in Israel and many Christians go during Sukkot. Much like secular people decorate for Christmas, secular as well as religious Israelis build booths in their yards, or balconies, rudimentary in nature with nothing but branches and leaves for roofs, so you can see the stars, as per YHWH’s instructions.

The lights and strip heater may be a little too luxurious for the point of it, but who am I to judge..!

Like all the holy feasts it is prophetic on so many levels. And like all holy feasts, traditions or embellishments were added which may not have been specifically ordained, but were faithful to the meaning of the feast and some of which also point towards Yeshua the Messiah. For example, during the (so-called) silent years between the first and second testaments, the Jews developed two elements to Sukkot: The Drawing of Water and The Illumination:

The drawing of water symbolised YHWH’s provision of water in the wilderness. From the second day of Sukkot on each morning, amidst the celebrations, the priests would shout prayers such as "With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation" (Is. 12:3). Remember, the word “salvation” in Hebrew is “Yeshua”. When our saviour said this: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him" (John 7:37-38), He said it on the last day of Sukkot.

The Illumination was to symbolise YHWH’s presence with them in the wilderness (“tabernacling” with them) as the pillar of fire. At the time of Herod’s temple, there were 70-foot hight candelabras in the court of women, with massive bowls for lamps at the top. When they were illuminated, most homes in Jerusalem would have been illuminated by them. In John 8, it’s the day after the Sukkot when Yeshua was teaching in the Temple, and they brought him the woman accused of adultery. If the woman was permitted to be there, then Yeshua must have been teaching in the women’s court, alongside these huge lamps. It was there, after the “stone her” incident, that He said “"I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12) referring no doubt to the Sukkot lamps.

(Digressing slightly, but on the subject of the woman accused: How many people have asked "what did Yeshua write in the ground?" Many of these seemingly little details are hidden in some of those mysterious, obscure first testament prophesies. Check out Jeremiah 17:13. I reckon He wrote the names of all the accusers who left). Moving right along...

This is probably a little more like it! A Sukkah in Israel

Yeshua’s birth

Here’s the bit which challenges all our Christianised sensitivities. Yeshua was not born in an animal stall, a barn, or a stable. Not as such. In Luke 2 we see Josef and Miriam return to Bethlehem for the census. During Sukkot, Jerusalem would have been packed to the rafters with (mostly male) pilgrims and the surrounding towns would have also been busy, hence there being no room at the inn. All of the Christmas traditions are derived from Luke 2: And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. From that we get scowling innkeepers, stables, donkeys, cows, and a little straw basket.

Okay, so the word for manger in Greek was phatn’e, which is also used for stall referring to an animal stall (e.g. Luke 13:15). In Hebrew the word is marbek , but in Gen 33:17 Jacob built “booths” for his cattle and the word is Sukkot. In Jewish tradition, in their Sukkah, a family would put a receptacle there for the food, including unleavened bread to symbolise manna provided for them by YHWH. Manna was a prophetic event symbolising messiah (Ex 16:16-18). This receptacle was often referred to as marbek, or in English, a manger.

When Josef and Miriam arrived in Bethlehem the place would have been littered with Sukkot. They would have sought temporary shelter in one. That’s not to say there weren’t some animals in there since the shepherds would probably have let some take shelter. But, the Messiah was born in the very symbol YHWH gave the Jews to remind them of his dwelling amongst them, signifying the drawing of living water, and the shining of the light of the world. And, as an added touch just typical of YHWH’s attention to detail, the Messiah was laid in the very receptacle which resembled the housing of manna, and “swaddling clothes” was also the very same material used to light the huge candles in the Temple court.

To the orthodox Christian, some of this might sound a little "forced". Perhaps it is, but when it comes to explaining things to us, YHWH doesn’t miss much.

Folks, I'm not suggesting for a minute that we cease celebrating Christmas. Unity in the body is the core priority right now and besides, the Christmas season it still clinging onto some kind of relevance as an outreach opportunity, even though the truth does appear to be slowly disappearing under the weight of postmodern secularisation.

What I am saying is that getting intimate with YHWH's word should challenge us to add things to our life or remove them according to YHWH's will. He seldom forces us to do anything, rather He prefers that we want to do it. Who says that one day, down the track, you won't willingly and joyously take up Sukkot as the real celebration of YHWH's human birthday, the heralding of the time he arrived to dwell with us. Never say never.

After all, He has already given us the very festivals to commemorate (in advance) the different points of His redemption plans for the human race. Even simply recognising them can be pure joy.


.