"Hog-Wash"

There are some amazing new discoveries concerning the gospels, which have been developed over the last half-century. These discoveries are changing the current understandings of some of our sacred texts.

For instance, as David Bivin points out in his book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, the belief that Jesus taught in Aramaic has been seriously challenged, which helps us to understand some of the long misunderstood Hebraic idioms within the gospels. Going back in time to retrieve the meaning of many of these idioms, such as "a good eye," which means "to be generous," as apposed to *"an evil eye," meaning "stingy," will change the way we teach.

As scholars and archeologists dig deeper and deeper into the cultural setting of first century Jerusalem, there will be more discovers that will have a great influence on our current philosophies to literally transform our current theology from a Greek-based message to a more Hebraic style of reflection and interpretation.

For example, understanding that a *"prayer closet" is actually a tah-lit, which is a "small tent" or "prayer shawl," which was laid over the shoulders, and then pulled up to cover the face (closing the door), rather than an actual room, makes an impact on the message. No longer will we tell people that they should "go home" and pray in private, knowing that first century Jews carried their "closet" with them everywhere they went. This also gives us insight concerning "tent makers" to mean that they were very likely "prayer shawl makers."

I believe that going back into the history of first century Palestine will help the church to develop a clearer message and erase centuries of misunderstandings, such as when Jesus said to a "would-be" disciple who wanted to bury his father first, *"Let the dead bury the dead." This statement is in reference to the "second-burial" system of that time, when the Hellenized Jews were influenced by Gnosticism. These Jews would bury the loved one and one year later dig up the body and place the bones in an ossuary. They believed that the one year between burials was a time of redemption when the "sinful" flesh was removed, thereby doing away with the sin so that the body could now be buried sinless with its ancestors.

Jesus words to this "would-be" disciple were actually to say, “Hog-wash! Your father has been dead for a year. Let’s go!”

These historical finds will have great impacts on the teachings of the church.

Though it is not popular or comfortable to approach the discrepancies of our theological frameworks, we must do so for the sake of truth. I believe that the impact made by delving into the historical facts of first century Palestine will give us a more "believable" message for the masses. As long as we rely on intellect (Western mindset), rather than the practical, useful, wisdom of the Eastern mind, we will continue to perpetuate a "spiritual only" gospel.

The Trinity is a very interesting issue for the church and one that we have a very difficult time articulating, without reverting to the "some things aren't meant for us to understand" explanation. It is also interesting that only Matthew and Luke mention it. Paul is silent on the subject, as are the rest of the New Covenant writers, and the Old Testament never mentions it, unless the LXX (Greek Version of the Old Testament) is used when speaking of "the virgin will conseive and bear a son," instead of the original Hebrew version which says, "a young woman will be with child (Isaiah 7:14)."

I have noticed, as I'm sure many have, that our beliefs are deemed more important than our actions. In other words, if I stay home and do nothing to imitate Christ, but believe in the fundamental doctrines of the church, I am safe to call myself a "child of God." But, if I feed the hungry, clothe the naked, et cetera, yet believe that YHWH is God, Jesus is His "favored and chosen" son (among all of His children) and Messiah, and that the Holy Spirit is Yahweh’s power and sovereignty in the world, rather than believing that God is one and three, then I am a “child of Satan.”

The influence of Greek thought on the Scriptures and our theology has allowed for redactors of the texts to place anti-Semitisms and angelology throughout. As more and more research is done, and as more and more study of first century Jewish culture is calculated, we are learning that the influence of Greek thought has done more to damage the message of God, than it has to preserve a people of God.

For me (I don't push this on others), I have chosen to use less and less of the Westernized commentaries and stick with texts that are more Hebraic for the very reason that there are far too many misunderstood texts when Hebraic idioms, parables, et cetera are interpreted in the Greek or even English contexts. "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it" is incredibly silly, considering the completely different worldview of a very Jewish Jesus who spoke to a very Jewish people in a very Jewish time. To ignore the difference between Western thought and Eastern thought is to do harm to the message that Jesus taught.

I have great respect for all of those who worked hard to understand the Words of the Scriptures without the last half-century of discoveries, but should we allow the respect for 1700 years of hard work to outweigh the discoveries of of the last 50?


Forever learning,
Johnny

*Matthew 6:23
*Matthew 6:6
*Matthew 8:22