Interperter of Tongues

The early Church was a branch of first century Judaism. Both the synagogue and the early Church were well organized and had similar roles, titles, and positions for those who had specific responsibilities in a perspective congregation.

One such position was that of the meturganim (interpreter). A meturganim was a person who was very knowledgeable in the language of Hebrew, including the Hebrew Scriptures, and was also fluent in the common language, such as Greek or Aramaic, of the people in a particular synagogue. He would stand by the person who was reading the Hebrew Torah or teaching in the house of study, and after the reader would speak the Hebrew words directly into the ear of the interpreter, the interpreter would turn and tell the congregation, in their own language, what was read or taught.

This is the context of Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:27: “What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.”

Understanding that the Scriptures of the Hebraic Jews were written in Hebrew helps us to understand Paul’s insistence upon having a meturganim when reading in a congregation where they did not understand Hebrew. Without an interpreter, “…you will just be speaking into the air” (1 Cor 14:9b).

Forever learning,
Johnny

Let Go And Let Man

People will often resort to the quickest way to get from one point to another, which is not a straight line. The shortest way to get from one point to another is by taking the path of least resistance.

Anytime a person, including myself, gets out of control, it’s because we don’t know how to handle the situation that we are in. Often parents like me will find themselves in situations of discipline where we resort to screaming like maniacs or spanking a child, not because we have great wisdom, but because, at that moment, we don’t have a clue what we should do.

When Jesus introduced the Kingdom, he did it by show and tell, and then he said, “Take over.” In fact, he gave Peter the keys (Matthew 16:19). Peter was put in charge of the Kingdom. Jesus didn’t say, “Peter, here are the keys. You are in charge, but I’m in control.” Peter was charged with leading the Kingdom of Heaven (God's children).

Peter wasn't put in charge the same way we put our six-year-old in charge of cleaning her room. Peter was in charge like the President of the United States is in charge of the country—he is the leader, supported by the rest of the people in the U.S.

Many Christians will use the cliché “God is in control” and I often wonder—what in the world does that mean?

I have been haunted for the last two days over a little four-year-old girl in Raleigh who was brutally killed by her own father by way of decapitation in their home, while her mother was at work. The father fled the state and left the mother to come home and find the unimaginable remains of her baby. I have cried twice in the last two days, because I coudn't stop myself from picturing the horror of that little girl's last few moments of life with her dad.

When God first created human beings, the first thing he did was give them the authority to kabash the world.

“God created human beings in his own image. God gave them authority and said, “Make more people; fill the world and kabash (kaw-bash) it. Rule over all the living things in the world” (Genesis 1:27-28, my translation).

Kabash is a very interesting word. We often read it translated as “subdue.” "Subdue" in our day can mean a lot of things. I would venture that most people think it means “cover.” But the real meaning of the word will probably surprise most of Christendom. Kabash is a word of great depth; it means to conquer, bring into bondage, bring into subjection, CONTROL.

God put human beings in control.

Good or bad, pretty or ugly, we are in control.

Nice or hateful, life-giving or murderous, we are in control.

Happy or sad, grateful or greedy, we are in control.

Saying to ourselves or to others, every time something goes horribly wrong, “God is in control,” may sound nice, but it’s not true. We are in control. God put us in control and we don’t have the privilege of taking the path of least resistance and giving control to God.

God said a long time ago, "Let go and let man."

Today, I stopped giving my responsibility to kabash the world back to God. It may not be easy, fun, comfortable, convenient, or simple, but it’s still our responsibility.

Forever learning,
Johnny

Who Is Your Jesus?

Whether we want to accept it or not, Jesus did not go around the country finding non-Jews and creating the Christian Church. Neither did Jesus go around converting Jews to Christianity. Jesus was a Jew in a Jewish world with a message for Israel. The non-Jews are privileged to be welcomed into the family of Israel. It’s not the other way around.

“As far as the gospel is concerned, they [the Jews] are enemies on your account but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Romans 11:28-29).

The history of the Church is often written with the pre-70 A.D. Jewish world left out. This is unfortunate, because the ability to thoroughly understand Jesus and the early Church requires a person to have some understanding of the world in which Jesus lived and taught. Ignorance about the world of Jesus is also partly responsible for such atrocities as the Crusades of the early Church, the Holocaust, and the ongoing terrorism from one religious group upon another. Even the lone-ranger evangelists that in good conscience condemn others to hell with printed posters and harsh words do so out of ignorance of the true message of the true Jesus.

Christ’s movement was a very Jewish movement within a Jewish world and founded on a Jewish framework that was almost completely lost when the Church became dominated by the non-Jewish world.

Bringing a clear focus to Jesus and his Jewish world is difficult today because over the centuries the world has worked diligently to define who Jesus is outside of his Jewish culture. Almost every era has its own version of Jesus. As Dr. Ron Moseley points out in his book, Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church, the influence of Gnosticism is probably the first to begin distorting the image of Jesus with its teachings of dualism (the idea that the soul is good and the body is sinful, and one day the soul will be freed from its sinful cage). With this thought in mind, Jesus began to take on the persona of being a mystic teacher who could show us the way for the soul to be released. This philosophy still invades the Theology of the Church today and has given life to songs such as “I’ll Fly Away.”

From the fourth to the 7th century, indicative of the Byzantine period, Jesus was presented as a powerful emperor who resembled Constantine rather than a humble rabbi.

And reflective of the medieval attitude in the Middle Ages, Jesus was portrayed as the lowly, defeated victim who is hanging on a cross.

Today, especially in the Western world, many people view Jesus as a fair skinned, blue-eyed, long-haired, middle-aged Caucasian rather than a Jewish man with a dark complexion.

Our picture of Jesus has an affect on our perspective of his words, which also has an affect on our interpretation of Jesus’ message as we share it with the world. If I picture Jesus as a lowly, defeated, suffering bearer of a cross, then I will tend to see the rest of humanity as guilty sinners who are unworthy of the Savior whom they killed by their sins. If I picture Jesus as a powerful conquering emperor, then I will view humanity as servants of a respectable king who empowers his people for an abundant life.

Our picture of Jesus, when removed from the reality of his Jewish rabbinic world can inspire an entirely different message from that of the historical Jesus, and make the message of Jesus as subjective as our individual pictures.

Jesus, the Pharisee

In Dr. Ron Moseley’s book, Yeshua, Moseley cites an essay written by Morton Smith, where Smith writes that the ancient world did not have a general term for “religion.” In the Hellenized world, the only word used for “religion” was “philosophy,” which included the religion of the Pharisees. In addition, Smith notes that the ancient Jews used the Hellenistic term “philosophy” to describe what they believed and how they expressed their beliefs.

There are some remarkable similarities between the Pharisees and Greek philosophers.

Pharisaic teachers and Greek Philosophers:
1. were not paid to teach;
2. had disciples who followed and served them;
3. had occupations and were financially supported by those who appreciated their teaching;
4. were exempt from taxes;
5. were recognized in public by the way they walked, talked, and dressed;
6. practiced some level of asceticism.

The philosophy of the Pharisees included believing in the entirety of the Scriptures and the Oral Law (spoken commentary), resurrection of the dead, angels, and eternal judgment.

If it were not for the Pharisaic philosophy, we would not believe in life after death, the resurrection of the body, preaching on the Sabbath, the existence of angels, or the importance of commentaries.

It is widely believed by many scholars of first century Judaism that Jesus was very much in line with the Pharisaic philosophy and that his criticisms of the Pharisees were not criticisms of all Pharisees, but were part of an ongoing debate between those who followed the great teachers, Hillel and Shammai. Jesus was most closely aligned with the teachings of Hillel who was thirty years older than Jesus and was known for his great wisdom and teaching. One of Hillel’s teachings, which was supported and quoted by Jesus, was “what you would not have done to you, do not to another; that is the whole Law, the rest is commentary.”

Those who supported and followed the yoke of Hillel were often debating with those who followed the yoke of Shammai. Jesus often entered the same debate, supporting the teachings of Hillel who taught that it is okay to heal on the Sabbath and clean the outside of a cup at a later time rather than before drinking from it.

The philosophy of Jesus is his yoke, and Jesus' yoke is the yoke that we follow today. Jesus' yoke and Hillel's yoke were very similar. Therefore, the point of this article is to bring attention to the possibilities that the Pharisees, like other ancient philosophers, were varied in their beliefs and teachings, and that Jesus, like the other Jewish sages of his time, was not necessarily enforcing an entirely new philosophy for living out the Word, but was an advocate of a philosophy which was already being taught and practiced in his time by a portion of the Pharisees, a group with which Jesus was most closely aligned.

Forever learning,
Johnny

Check out this blog.

I want to invite everyone to check out Angela's blog at www.ang4him.blogspot.com.

She's sharing some really great studies on the Hebraic and Jewish roots of Christianity.

Say hello while you're there.

Grace and peace,
Johnny

Signs of A Cult

Has anyone else ever heard of these five signs?

Tantalizing if True
Five signs of a cult
Posted in Desperate Suggestions Thursday, December 7th, 2006 Trackback

1. A strong sense of group identity and community.
2. A belief that the group is somehow separate from the rest of society.
3. A strong sense of group destiny and purpose.
4. An unwavering adherence to the teachings of its founder, which may differ radically from the rest of society.
5. A total commitment to the goals of the movement which overrides personal goals and comfort.

Forever learning,
Johnny

Is the Bride Ready?

Ancient Israel had many customs and practices that would not be allowed in our culture today. One such custom was the engagement process. A young man in his twenties would go with his father to the village where the 14-year-old girl whom he was to marry lived with her parents. While there, he would meet the girl and her father for the first time.

A Jewish matchmaker called a shadkhan would put the young man and young woman together based on yihus (stock, family background, reputation in the community, and personal virtue). Jewish marriages placed an emphasis on love after marriage, as opposed to marrying the one you love.

When the young man arrived at the young woman’s house, the two fathers would settle on a “bride-price." Payment by means of money or material items was a way of honoring the family that would be losing the daughter. When the price was settled, the young man’s father would pass his son a cup of wine. The young man would drink from the cup and pass the cup to the young woman, signifying that he wanted her to be his wife and that he was giving his life to her. If she drank from the cup, she was in effect saying, “I want to marry you. I accept your life, and I will give you mine.”

Then the young man and his father would travel back to their village where the young man would begin building a room onto his parent’s home. Generations of sons would build on to the house, creating what is called an insula, a house with many rooms. The young man would work on his house until his dad, the only person who could give a final approval for the new home, would say, “It is ready. Go and receive your bride.”

While the young man worked on the new house, the bride-to-be would make wedding clothes and learn to take care of a home. She was expected to always be ready for his return at any moment. During this time of preparation, all of the people in the young woman’s village would refer to her as “one who has been bought with a price.”

Eventually, the home would be ready, the young man’s dad would give his approval and send his son to receive his bride. When the bridegroom entered the village of his bride-to-be, he would blow a shofar and all the village would hear the horn and know that the bridegroom had arrived. A wise bride would be ready when her bridegroom arrived.

Those who have been learning, preparing, and have kept themselves ready for the groom will join him when he returns and sends his angels to sound the trumpet.

“Do not let your heart be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am” (John 14:1-3).

In His dust,
Johnny

There Is No Old Testament

It is often believed that when Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17) that he is saying, “I have not come to nullify them, but finish them off and start a new one.” With this thought in mind, most of Christendom believes that Jesus was teaching that he came to obey all the commands, close the old book, and write a new book. As we study the very Hebraic nature of the idiomatic words and phrases “to come,” “to abolish,” and “to fulfill,” we will find the true meaning of Jesus’ words.

According to David Bivin in his book, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, when Jesus says that he did not “come,” the word that he would have used was often idiomatically used to denote his intent or purpose rather than meaning he left one place and came to another. In other words, Jesus is saying, “My purpose is not to…but to…” In the King James Version, the original word for abolish was translated “to destroy the law.” According to Bivin, this is not a correct translation as the probable Hebrew equivalent of the Greek verb, levatel, which literally means “to cancel” was often used among the educated teachers during the time of Jesus, and it meant “to misinterpret a biblical mitzvah or commandment.”

Bivin goes on to teach that the probable Hebrew equivalent of the Greek verb plerosai, which is translated “fulfill,” is lekayem, which was often used as the opposite for levatel and meant “to clearly or properly interpret a commandment.”

All of this leads us to understand that it is very possible that Jesus is saying, “I did not come to misinterpret the law and the prophets, but to clearly interpret them” denoting that God’s people needed His instructions reiterated and clarified.

Knowing that Jesus as a Jewish rabbi greatly valued, respected, and kept the Hebrew Scriptures, we should consider that Jesus would not have given a new Bible to the world; he gave clarity to God’s original instructions, not to replace them, but to be placed with them. As one who agrees with this understanding of Jesus’ words, I would add that it does harm to the Church to consider the “New Testament” a new law, rather than a clarification with two amendments. The two amendments to the instructions of God are the release from making blood sacrifices as Jesus became a permanent sacrifice, and all people are now welcome to become a part of God's chosen people.

Furthermore, the approach of considering the “Old Testament” to be an outdated and finished up book of rules replaced by Jesus’ book of grace would appear to resemble the teachings of Marcion who completely rejected the Old Testament and considered it to be the scriptures of a cruel and completely different God from the God of the New testament. Marcion’s influences from Gnostic beliefs have unwittingly been carried on within Christian theology, philosophy, and practice whether overtly recognized or revealed in more sinister and hidden ways.

It may be that the practice of printing Bibles which are without the Old Testament is justified by a hint of Marcionism and the anti-Jewish culture that has been cultivated by the post-70 A. D. movement of the Church.

I want to do my best to fulfill Jesus' words and never abolish them.

In His dust,
Johnny