 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Learn Hebrew |
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Learn Torah |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
January 2009 Updates Until "Shiloh" Comes... 01.05.09 (Tevet 9, 5769) The Torah reading for this week (Vayechi) is the final portion of sefer Bereshit (the Book of Genesis) and includes Birkhat Ya'akov - the prophetic blessing of Jacob over the tribes of Israel.  When the time came for Jacob to die, he did not call the designated firstborn of the family (that would be Reuben, who forfeited his status), but rather Joseph, the firstborn to his beloved wife Rachel. Jacob asked Joseph to not be buried in Egypt but rather in the resting place of Abraham and Isaac (i.e., the Promised Land), and he asked Joseph to swear that he would bury him there. As Joseph promised, Jacob "bowed his head" -- an indication that Joseph's dream that his brothers and even his father would bow down to him was fulfilled. Later, when Jacob convened all his sons together to bless them before his death, he prophesied that "the scepter (砖讈值讘侄讟) will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh (砖讈执讬诇讜止) comes; and to him shall be the obedience (讬拽职讛指讛) of the people" (Gen. 49:10). According to the early rabbis and Talmudic authorities, the "ruler's staff from between his (Judah's) feet" refers to the Messiah (Targum Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Targum Yerusahlmi) and the word "Shiloh" comes from she-lo, meaning "that is his." In other words, kingly authority would be vested in the tribe of Judah until the Messiah appears, at which time he would reign as the supreme leader of the people. Others have said that since shiloh has the final Hey with a mappiq as a prepositional function of "to" or "towards," it actually means toward Shiloh, the very first capital of Israel in the Promised Land. In either case, however, the idea has to do with the authority invested in Judah as divine regent until the Messiah appears. Historically speaking, if we understand the "regency of Judah" to be invested in the Great Sanhedrin (after the last independent King of Judah [Tzedekiah] was deposed), the scepter (shevet) would have departed from Judah in AD 6-7 after the Romans installed a procurator as the authority in Judea (thus replacing the Sanhedrin). However, the prophecy of Jacob did not fail, since the Mashiach had indeed come and was in their midst as Yeshua mi-netzeret (Jesus of Nazareth) at that time. In other words -- Yeshua is indeed the King of the Jews, though at present He is not physically reigning on David's throne (this will occur at His Second Coming when he returns to Jerusalem at the end of olam ha-zeh (this present age) to establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth).
Asarah B'Tevet - 注砖专讛 讘讟讘转 01.04.09 (Tevet 8, 5769) This coming Tuesday (January 6th on the Gregorian calendar) is Asarah B'Tevet ("the Tenth of Tevet"), traditionally recognized as day of mourning for the loss of the Jewish Temple (Bet Ha-mikdash). Orthodox Jews will fast from sunrise to sunset to commemorate the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon (in 587 BC) -- an event that eventually led to the destruction of the First Temple and the 70-year Babylonian Exile of the Jewish people. In Israel, Asarah B'Tevet also marks the day Kaddish (memorial prayer) is recited for people whose date or place of death is unknown. This has resulted in a day of mourning for the many Jews who perished during the Holocaust (in addition to the formal commemoration of Yom HaShoah).
Follow Up to "Is Christianity anti-Jewish?"  01.03.09 (Tevet 7, 5769) In response to my post about "Is Christianity... anti-Jewish?" yesterday (see below), someone asked me how we could help correct the errors of Replacement Theology (and its overarching hermeneutical framework otherwise known as "Covenant Theology"). I answered that this is ultimately God's business, not ours... Only God can open people's minds to the truth and give them the gift of teshuvah (repentance). No amount of reasoning from the Scriptures seems to help, since most advocates of Replacement Theology will use their hermeneutical commitments to reinterpret the texts to their liking. This is similar to the methodology of various cults, including the cult of rabbinical tradition: texts that do not easily cohere with the presuppositions of the theological system are either explained away or invested with meaning that is alien to the intent of the original author (as Jesus once remarked, "Wisdom is justified by her children"). It's disconcerting to listen to various Christian teachers and preachers impugn God's promises made to Israel while claiming to call upon the Name of the same God who made these promises in the first place. What sort of theological madness leads you there? When someone's theological presuppositions and denominational commitments trump the plain reading of Scripture, it takes nothing less than a miracle to learn to see something from another perspective. Practically speaking, gentle words, a spirit of love and understanding, living out our own heart convictions with sincerity -- this is our best option it seems. And we can (and should) pray for these people, too, that the LORD God of Israel would reveal the truth that Jesus is none other than the King of the Jews....
Is Christianity ... anti-Jewish?  [ Many of today's church leaders hold views about ethnic Israel that express institutionalized prejudice and an "anti-Jewish" bias. But how did the church get so far removed from the Jewish roots of the faith? Is Christianity essentially anti-Jewish in its perspective? ] 01.02.09 (Tevet 6, 5769) Is it possible to be a sincere Christian and yet be anti-Jewish? In a sermon I heard recently, a well-known American Evangelical teacher announced to his congregation that he would prefer to have the church "fix his car" rather than get a "free trip" to Israel for his 30th anniversary. He further stated that he's never been to Israel and has no desire to ever go there, expressing an almost callous indifference to Israel's past, present, or future. Now this might strike you as rather insignificant, hardly worth mentioning at all, but there are certain theological assumptions lurking behind this sentiment that should be alarming for Christians who hold faith in the veracity of the Jewish Scriptures. What would cause a pastor of a large, Bible-believing church apparently disdain the idea of going to see the land of Jesus -- and to suggest that ethnic Israel is essentially irrelevant? How could someone who regularly studies and preaches from the Jewish Scriptures believe that Israel - past, present, and future - is functionally meaningless for those of the Christian faith? To understand part of this mystery, we have to back up and think about theological presuppositions. In particular, we have to revisit the basic assumptions theologians make when they read the Jewish Scriptures. Many Christian theologians assume a "New Testament priority" when reading the "Old Testament." Simply put, this means that they apply the terms of the Greek New Testament as they "read backwards" to the Old. As I have said elsewhere, however, while it's possible that the Old Testament is true and the New Testament is not, it's impossible for the New Testament to be true if the Old Testament is not. In other words, we must first take pains to understand the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures -- and especially the Hebraic mindset -- before we draw our conclusions about the meaning of the New Testament. It is just common sense to read things in context, after all....  "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." - The Prophet Isaiah Theologians all bring assumptions and biases when they read the Scriptures, but ideally the goal should be to discover the author's original intent as it was communicated to his audience. In other words, they should always try to read in context, taking into account the historical situation of the author (including the historical usage of the words and grammar) as well as the culture of those who would read his words. Violating this basic principle invites "reading into the text" things that just aren't there. That means, among other things, that if you are a Gentile theologian steeped in Western Greek traditions, you better be careful to remember that you are reading Jewish literature. Both the "Old Testament" as well as the "New Testament" are writings from Jews to their fellow Jews. Failure to realize this blindingly obvious fact leads to bizarre and misguided interpretations of the Scriptures. Of course, within the Jewish literature of the Bible there are different genres (types) of writing. There are historical narratives (prose), legal codes, genealogies, annals, poetry, prophecies, prayers, laments, proverbs, miracle stories, parables, didactic letters (epistles), apocalyptic visions, and so on. In addition to the overarching fact that we are dealing with Jewish literature, then, the Bible interpreter must understand the type of literature he or she is reading. We do not read the Bible's poetry as prose, after all, and conversely, we shouldn't attempt to find allegories and symbols in historical accounts. The use of logic is essential to ascertaining the meaning of a text.  The study of interpretation theory is sometimes called "hermeneutics." In Talmudic Judaism, for instance, various compilations of rules and methods for determining the meaning of Scripture were devised. In addition to studying the diction and grammar of a given text, Jewish tradition adds the techniques of logical deduction and rules of inference, the critical study of the Masora (i.e., the scribal transmission process as well as the stylization of the text), the use of "gematria" (Bible codes), but most importantly, the use of precedence in interpretation (i.e., the communal dialog of the oral law). This general approach, it should be noted, is vastly different than the Hellenistic theology of Philo and the Jews of Alexandria in the second century B.C. who attempted to synthesize Greek philosophy (i.e., Plato) with traditional Judaism by means of allegorical interpretation methods. Christianity initially was embedded within the cultural matrix of Second Temple Judaism, of course, but it quickly became enmeshed in Hellenistic (Greek) culture and pagan tradition. The first "apostolic fathers" and apologists of Christianity quoted Scripture in order to refute various heresies (i.e., Gnosticism, Docetism, Montanism, etc.) and to demonstrate that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Most of these early church leaders were Hellenistic Gentiles (i.e., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Origen, etc) who sought to synthesize their Greek thinking with the Jewish Scriptures. Like Philo before them, these early "Alexandrian" apologists adopted the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures. For example, according to these "apologists," God destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem as a sign that He had abandoned the Jewish people. Now Gentile Christians were the chosen people who would "reconstitute" the Temple apart from Jerusalem's influence. This is the core idea of what would later be called "Replacement Theology." After the "conversion" of the pagan Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, the Church became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and Greek/Roman thought eclipsed the Hebraic mindset of the original Jesus movement in Palestine. Constantine decreed that "Sun Day" would now be the weekly day of rest, further removing the Romanized church from its Jewish matrix and heritage. Later Greek and Latin "fathers" (such as Jerome, Chrysostom and Augustine) continued to resort to the Greek philosopher Plato and used the allegorical method in their theological writings. Augustine, in particular, explained the existence of the Jew as the mark of humiliation and vindication of the Church as the "new Israel" (see his Sermon Against the Jews). Augustine's ecclesiology was more fully developed in his famous book called The City of God in which he conceives of the church as a heavenly city or kingdom, ruled by love, which will ultimately triumph over all other earthly empires and peoples. With the acceptance of the City of God by the church and Augustine's later canonization, Replacement Theology was entirely entrenched within Church tradition...  During the medieval Scholastic period, the Greek pagan philosopher Aristotle was rediscovered and made popular, and various Christian theologians (most notably Thomas Aquinas) sought again to synthesize Greek thinking with the truths of Scripture (this was mirrored, incidentally, by Maimonides in the Jewish world). The use of deduction, logic, and arid theoretical refutations (i.e. the "Scholastic Method") became vogue... The Church's Replacement Theology continued, of course, as "Christian Europe" made the Jewish people into functional pariahs, providing limited career opportunities (in money-lending, considered an unclean business) and so on. The various "Crusades" and "Inquisitions" were further expressions of the arrogance of the "Holy Roman Empire" -- and the romanized Christian Church.  During the period of the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism, the Latin Vulgate (i.e., the translation of the Scriptures by the Catholic scholar Jerome) was rejected and a renewed emphasis on the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture arose. The Scholastic method based on Aristotelian logic was dropped in preference of newer ideas of scientific induction, empirical observation, and so on. Erasmus and Luther began to translate (and reread) the original Scriptures using inductive methods of study, and this, of course, led to the "Reformation" of the Church. As a Hebracist, at first Luther attempted to befriend the Jewish people, but later in life he turned vitriolic in his attacks upon them. Following the footsteps of Augustine and other early "church fathers," Luther taught that in rejecting Jesus the Jews became the "quintessential other," a model of the opposition to the Christian view of God. Like many before him, he argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were rather "the devil's people" (later Adolf Hitler justified the Holocaust of the Jewish people as the logical consummation of Luther's ideas).  With the influence of the "Age of Enlightenment," Immanuel Kant's "transcendental idealism" became the prevailing creed in academia. Kant tried to resolve the dilemma created by Renaissance thinking (i.e., inductive methodologies) with the traditional "rationalism" of earlier thinkers (i.e., deductive methodologies). His synthesis, which he boldly called a "Copernican Revolution," placed the active, rational human subject at the center of the cognitive world. Human knowledge, in other words, isn't a passive affair, but instead relies on categories of understanding that are brought to the perceptual process. What we can directly know is only phenomena (empiricism) as it is mediated by the mind's rules of apprehending sensation (rationalism). However we can never directly know the noumenal realm (i.e., what lies behind the sensations of the mind itself) or the "thing-in-itself." The mind was restricted to phenomenal realm. Eventually this dualism between appearance and reality was applied to the understanding of Biblical texts.  The academic work of the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), for example, attempted to reconcile scientific rationalism with traditional Protestant theology. Schleiermacher's "rationalistic hermeneutic" explained away the miraculous from Scripture as being either myth or superstition (in the Jewish world, Baruch Spinoza was perhaps the progenitor of this method). This approach later transformed itself into the "higher critical" school of Biblical interpretation with various documentary hypotheses (JEDP) that questioned the authorship and integrity of the Scriptures. Various conservative reactions within Protestantism tried to preserve the realm of faith, such as Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann's distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith." A "neo-Orthodox hermeneutic" arose that claimed that the Bible in itself is not God's revelation but only becomes such when someone accepts it through faith. Interpretation was thus seen primarily as a personal encounter with God. Despite the mysticism of neo-Orthodoxy, rationalistic theology continued to gain ground generally became the predominant theology of "Christian Europe." Today we see its fruit in the "Jesus Seminar" that promotes various scholarly speculations about what the historical Jesus might have really said as opposed to what the Gospel records attribute to Him (as well as other fanciful reconstructions of the "historical Jesus" you might see on television these days). Rationalistic theology is also taught in many mainline Protestant Seminaries in America. The spiritual realm is consigned to the realm of the "noumenal," and that means that it is essentially irrational and unknowable... The American Fundamentalist movement initially arose as a reaction to these liberal and rationalistic approaches. Originally a movement of Princeton Seminary through the work of John Gresham Machen (1881-1937), fundamentalism 1) asserted the full authority and divine inspiration of the Scriptures (i.e., the rejection of rationalistic reconstructions of the Bible), 2) the authenticity of miracles, and 3) disputed the idea that Christian spirituality must be consigned to the murky realm of the "noumenal." As this viewpoint gained popularity, more and more people began to actually read the Scriptures for themselves. Using common sense, the idea of allegorizing the Scriptures and extrapolating meaning based on the "spirit of the age" was questioned. Consistently reading the Scriptures according to the "grammatical-historical" method eventually led to the expression of classical "Dispensationalism" and the distinction between the Jewish people (understood as ethnic Israel) and the Church. This hermeneutical approach was more or less institutionalized by C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) and was later codified by Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary. After World War II, America culture "caught up with" the rest of Europe and entered into the postmodern period of despair. The philosophy of Kant had led to the irrationalism of Hegel and Nietzsche -- which ultimately led to the crashed ruins of German nationalism. As the threat of modern rationalism apparently abated, the reactionary force of the "Fundamentalist movement" began to wane. Over time subtle compromises with the grammatical-historical method of interpretation rekindled the liberal thinking of older Protestant theology. The subsequent "Evangelical movement" created a buffet-style of theologian expression among its church leaders and teachers, ranging from charismatic irrationalism to the adoption of liturgical worship and even sacredotalism. This confusion led to the development of the "Emergent Church" movement that claimed that any form of traditional Christianity had become obsolete. A postmodern "ideological hermeneutic" arose that insisted that the Scriptures are "read" merely to justify a particular agenda or narrative (i.e., there is no "right interpretation" any longer). This classically postmodern approach is "reader-centric" because it claims that the original meaning of the authors of Scripture is essentially unknowable.  Not all Evangelical teachers and preachers have made the "postmodern turn" in their thinking, of course. Some have reacted to the nihilism of the Emergent Church by seeking to return Christianity to its (supposed) original roots and meaning. For instance, Dr. John Piper considers the Puritan era to be a sort of "Golden Age" of Christian expression and therefore draws much inspiration from the writings of the Puritan Covenant theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). Other theologians have their traditional heroes (and villains) as well. But common to most of these newer traditions is a reversion to the allegorical method of interpretation based on ancient Greek speculation. And that approach invariably returns the Church to the old errors of Replacement Theology....  In other words, the contemporary Evangelical world can be divided between two primary interpretive approaches to the Scriptures: the allegorical approach or the "historical-grammatical" approach. Another way to say this is that Evangelicals can be classified under either the general rubric of "Covenant Theology" or "Dispensationalism" (there are variations of both these views, such as "New Covenant Theology" or "Progressive Dispensationalism," but the basic division centers on questions related to the use of analogy in our interpretations). In general, advocates of the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture are "Covenant theologians" (and therefore are part of the early church's tradition of regarding "Israel" as a parable, or allegory, for the Christian Church), whereas advocates of the grammatical-historical method are often "Dispensationalists" (and therefore make a clear separation between "Israel" and the "Church"). Note that a common euphemism for Replacement Theology is "Completion Theology," suggesting that the Church is the "completion" of God's original plan for Israel... An "allegorical hermeneutic" downplays the literal meaning of the text as only one of many layers of possible meanings. The goal of interpretation is therefore to discover the (hidden, allegorical, etc.) meaning of a given writer as it is understood in light of the overall "unity of the Bible." This will result in a coherent philosophical theology that provides answers to questions regarding the meaning and purpose of life, the goal of history, and so on. In contrast to this approach, the "grammatical-historical hermeneutic" seeks to discover the original intent of the author of a text by studying the grammar/syntax in the author's historical context. The goal of interpretation is therefore to discover the (singular) meaning of the writer as he intended that meaning to be communicated to his historical audience. This will result in an accurate understanding of the texts of Scripture (exegesis) that allows the unique voice of each original author to be heard -- without imposing a preconceived theological system to filter the results. Since Covenant theology focuses on the big questions about the meaning and purpose of life, the goal of history, and so on, many Covenant theologians allegorize ancient Israel by claiming it to be synonymous with the "church." And since the "believing remnant" of Israel and the "church" are one and the same, any promises God made to ethnic Israel really were made the church (understood as the eternal "sons of light," etc.). Instead of regarding the church as something new -- a "mysterious" body of people who become "grafted in" to the faithful remnant of Israel (Rom. 11:25, Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:26-27, etc.) -- Covenant theologians read backwards, and claim that "Israel" was grafted into the church (Rom. 11:18). And this explains, in large measure, the disdain shown for the existence of the nation of Israel today among many Covenant theologians today. Instead of marveling over the miracle of God's providential care for the lineage of Jacob by causing the Jews to return to their ancient homeland after thousands of years of exile among the nations -- an event that was prophesied by Moses (Deut. 28:64, 30:3) -- they often express a studious indifference. And this belittling attitude makes perfect sense if you allegorize the promises of God given to ethnic Israel as really being about the Christian church. Once you define the Church as Israel (or "reconstituted Israel"), you thereby imply that ethnic Israel was some sort of failed social experiment by God -- at best an object lesson for those who are the true people of God. Using this interpretative scheme, ethnic Israel is once again regarded as a pathetic sort of footnote about the failure of man to keep the terms of the covenant, and the Jewish people are therefore regarded as living parable or analogy for those who reject God's saving actions through Jesus... The Jews are destined to "wander the earth," homeless and forsaken, until they repent and accept Jesus as his Savior. Persecution of the Jewish people is thereby tacitly endorsed, since the Jews "get what's coming to them" because they have mocked God's greatest historical covenant of all -- the giving of His Son for the redemption of the world.  Notice how this line of thinking quickly goes beyond the Church's appropriation of the covenants and blessings historically originally given to Israel to insinuations that modern day Israel is illegitimate. If the Church is the true "Israel of God" (i.e., "reconstituted Israel"), then the existence of the modern State of Israel -- and therefore the Jewish people themselves -- is an affront and embarrassment to Covenant theology itself. Despite their heritage, history, and the plainly stated promises of God in the Scriptures, the Jewish people are libeled as the "synagogue of satan," impostors, disobedient children, destined to wander in hardship and exile (for more, see Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies"). In his article, "Do Jews Have a Divine Right in the Promised Land?", Covenant theologian John Piper calls the Jewish people "a non-covenant-keeping people" without divine right to the land unconditionally promised to the descendants of Abraham. Do you see the progression here? The grammatical-historical approach to reading Scripture makes room for the original authors to speak for themselves. Consistently reading the Scriptures using this method will lead to the conclusion that God's plan and purpose for ethnic Israel is a matter of great importance to the LORD God of Israel (讬职讛讜指讛 讗直诇讛值讬 讬执砖讉职专指讗值诇), who described his people as "the apple of His eye." Indeed, "the one born the King of the Jews" lamented over Jerusalem and the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" and promised to return one day to physically reign over the "City of the great King" (i.e., Jerusalem). Indeed, Jesus' entire mission was to ransom captive Israel in fulfillment of the promises of the Hebrew prophets. According to the plain sense of Scripture, ethnic Israel's glorious future assuredly awaits them: When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days (讗址讞植专执讬转 讛址讬旨指诪执讬诐), you will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice (Deut. 4:30). Such words of the Hebrew prophets make no sense if we allegorize Israel to "really mean" the Church (or conversely, if we claim that the church really is "reconstituted Israel"). This sort of exegetical error might have been excusable in the Middle Ages or even during the Reformation when there was no State of Israel in existence, but since 1948 we've seen the Jewish people returning to the ancient Promised Land from all over the world. Am Yisrael Chai - "the people of Israel live!" How certain Christian teachers can ignore such a "mega sign" from heaven in light of the explicit promises that God will NEVER abandon his original covenant people is therefore entirely inexplicable. Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Have you seen the sun, moon or stars today? If so, you can be assured that the ethnic nation of Israel retains a place in God's plan. The gift and the calling of God is irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, 颅 When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first born in God's family. Most Covenant theologians will not say they are "anti-Israel" in principle... Some of them, such as John Piper, say that Israel - like any other secular state - should be judged according to moral principles expressed in the rule of international law and therefore should be afforded no preferential treatment. Dr. Piper further makes the astounding claim that "both the blessed status of the people and the privileged right to the land are conditional on Israel's keeping the covenant God made with her" (ibid). This conclusion agrees with Scripture only if an allegorical method of interpretation is being used, since Brit bein Ha-Betarim, the covenant "between the parts" (Gen. 15) was clearly an unconditional covenant that was later appealed to by the Apostle Paul to explain the doctrine of "justification by faith."
A lot more could be said about this subject, of course, and I have written about these matters elsewhere on this site. For some additional information, please see my article, "Israel and the Church - What's the Relationship?"
The Glory of God... in the Face of Jesus 01.01.09 (Tevet 5, 5769) Since most of us conventionally recognize the secular calendar system, please let me wish you a Happy New Year, chaverim! It's my heartfelt prayer that the LORD God of Israel will bless you and shine His radiance upon you during this coming year. Unlike Moses -- who veiled his face to hide the fact that the glory of the former covenant of Sinai was indeed fading away -- "we all, with unveiled face, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. This comes from the Lord who is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:12-4:1). Each of us, like Moses, ascends the mountain of Zion to behold the Glory of God: "And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only" (Matt. 17:8). Though we are "in but not of" this world (John 17:15), our faith indeed reflects back the shining glory (zohar) of the LORD as revealed in the face of Yeshua: "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness (讬职讛执讬 讗讜止专)' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Yeshua the Mashiach (2 Cor. 4:6). Let's consider the grammar of this complex and marvelous statement:
The subject of the verse is obviously God (with quote from Gen. 1:3 functioning as an appositive). Next there is the participle "the one who has shone" (慰蟼 蔚位伪渭蠄蔚谓), modified by the adverbial phrase "in our hearts" (蔚谓 蟿伪喂蟼 魏伪蟻未喂伪喂蟼 畏渭蠅谓), followed by the purposive clause: "for the enlightening (蟺蟻慰蟼 蠁蠅蟿喂蟽渭慰谓) of the knowledge (蟿畏蟼 纬谓蠅蟽蔚蠅蟼) of the glory of God (蟿畏蟼 未慰尉畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 胃蔚慰蠀) in the face of Jesus Christ (蔚谓 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺蠅 螜畏蟽慰蠀 围蟻喂蟽蟿慰蠀). Like the Divine Light created on the first day, God shines within our hearts to enlighten us with the truth that His glory is fully expressed in Yeshua. "The face of Jesus Christ" is therefore the radiance and glory of God Himself. As the author of the Book of Hebrews puts it, "He (Yeshua) is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:3). There is indeed a "glory" and grace found in the older covenant, but that glory and grace has been far surpassed by the glory of God as revealed in the face of Jesus...  It is my desire and utmost prayer that Hebrew4Christians will continue to be a resource of unique, grace-based teaching about the the glorious Person of Yeshua our Messiah, with the aim of yielding "scribes who have been trained for the kingdom of heaven... bringing out treasures from what is new and what is old" (Matt. 13:52).  May the LORD open our eyes to behold the glory of God (讻旨职讘讜止讚志讗值诇) as He shines -- in both the former covenant as well as in the new. Amen.
December 2008 Updates The Heart's Truth...  [ The following is an exploration of a theme in this week's parashah (Vayigash). It's not a "finished" piece of writing, so please forgive me if it seems a bit disjointed at places... - jjp ] 12.31.08 According to Jewish tradition, it was Joseph's firstborn son Manasseh who was "the steward" who planted the silver goblet in Benjamin's sack and had him arrested as a thief (Gen. 44:1-13). But did Manasseh knowingly participate in Joseph's orchestrated charade? Did he understand that his uncles had come to Egypt or did he regard them simply as "Canaanite strangers"? Was he was simply "obeying orders" from his father as "Joseph's steward," or was he willingly conspiring against his uncles as Joseph's son? Regardless of his exact motivation, however, Jewish tradition maintains that Manasseh forfeited part of his inheritance for causing his uncles to rend their garments. As a divine consequence, the descendants of Manasseh were decreed to be the first of Israel carried into captivity by the Assyrians (c. 740 BC). The moral of this story is that duplicitous words and actions -- even if they are intended to promote a greater good -- are unjustified and can even cause us to lose a portion of the blessing intended for our lives. The end never justifies the means. God is not a pragmatist, and there are no "noble lies" for sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. But what are we to make of Joseph's words and actions? Wasn't his charade and his scheme to entrap his brothers based on deception? What's the difference between Manasseh's deception and his father Joseph's? Why does Jewish tradition forgive Joseph for his duplicity but blame his son? Moreover, why didn't Joseph send a message to his father after he became a man of power in Egypt? For that matter, why didn't he show compassion for his obviously needy family during a time of famine? Why did he exacerbate their suffering by arresting Simeon, thereby greatly increasing the heartache of Jacob (Gen. 42:24)? If Manasseh was punished for causing his uncle's garments to be rent, how much more should Joseph have been punished for the suffering he caused his entire family? Various answers to these questions have been offered by the sages. Maimonides claimed that Joseph acted the way he did to see if his brothers had genuinely regretted their actions. Other sages have said that Joseph might have thought his father was somehow involved in the conspiracy to sell him. After all, Jacob had publicly reprimanded his son for his dreams (Gen. 37:10) and was the one who initially sent his son on the mission to spy on his brothers (Gen. 37:14) -- which eventually led to his sale to the Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:28). Moreover, wasn't Joseph's firstborn son called Manasseh, meaning "forgetting" in reference to "all my father's house" (Gen. 41:51)? Still others disagree and say that Joseph "forgot" his father's house because had he disclosed the truth, Jacob would have cursed his sons, and Joseph did not want this to occur. Joseph's withholding of his identity was therefore to be understood as an act of mercy toward his brothers. Still others say that Joseph's neglect of his father was the consequence of his father's neglect of his father Isaac while he was captive to Laban (i.e., the "sins of the fathers" are passed on to their children). And so on... Perhaps the difference lies in the inward heart motivation. Joseph was endued with prophetic wisdom that was evidenced early in his life. His family listened as he recounted his God-given dreams. They must have understood the stakes of being the firstborn son (bechor) of Israel and therefore the stakes for the fledgling nation... Moreover, the battle between Joseph and his brothers was Joseph's -- not Manasseh's -- and therefore Manasseh was wrong to "take on" the offense of his father. Joseph's deception was therefore strategic, intended to defeat the initial deception of his father Jacob by his brothers... Furthermore, the silver goblet surreptitiously put into Benjamin's sack and the phony charges might have come from another motive: perhaps he could not tolerate the pain of further separation from his only full-blooded brother (and son of his mother Rachel). Perhaps Joseph didn't want to risk never seeing Benjamin again, so his deception was based on love itself. Maimonides wrote that "Joseph was afraid that the brothers hated Benjamin, or were jealous of their father's love for him as they had been jealous of Joseph. He was afraid that Benjamin had realized that they had harmed Joseph and this had led to acrimony between them. Therefore Joseph did not want Benjamin to go with them lest they harm him, until he had verified their love for him" (Ramban, 42:9). Still, there is the nagging question, if Joseph had such compassion for his brother, why didn't he send word to his father after he began his ascent in Egypt? There are various other cases of seemingly justified cases of deception in the Bible, of course. Both Abraham and Isaac deceived Avimelech yet were prospered by God (Gen. 20:14-15; Gen. 26:11-16); Jacob deceived his father Isaac yet inherited the divine blessing (Gen. 27:19,33); Leah and Rachel deceived Jacob yet became the matriarchs of Israel (Gen. 29:25); Joseph deceived his brothers yet was elevated as a savior of the family (Gen. 39-45); the Jewish midwives lied to Pharaoh concerning the birth of Jewish babies yet were rewarded by God (Exod. 1:17-20); Rahab lied to the king about the whereabouts of Joshua's spies yet became part of the lineage of Messiah (Josh. 2); Jael pretended to offer Sisera protection but hammered a tent peg into his head while he was asleep (Judges 4); Nathan the prophet "deceived" David into confessing his sin with Bathsheeba (2 Sam. 12), and so on. I am sure you can think of other examples.... There are a lot of questions regarding all of this, though wisdom explicitly instructs us to refrain from the practice of deception in our lives. The Scriptures clearly teach that deception is morally blameworthy: "Shall I acquit the man with wicked scales and with a bag of deceitful weights?" (Micah 6:11). The Holy Spirit, moreover, is called the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17, 16:13), and it is "impossible for God to lie" (Num. 23:19, Heb. 6:18, Titus 1:2). The Apostle Paul wrote: "Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another" (Eph. 4:25), and "Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices" (Col. 3:9). Throughout the ethical teaching of the Scriptures, the tzaddik, the righteous man, is always described as yashar - full of integrity and moral righteousness. In the heavenly Jerusalem to come, truth will reign completely, and "outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood" (Rev. 22:14). Nonetheless, if deception is sometimes sovereignly "allowed" for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, the converse also appears to be true. Truth is sometimes expressed for the sake of the kingdom of Hell... Sometimes true words and actions performed in an unloving or spiteful manner are morally blameworthy. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906鈥1945) tells the story about how a teacher once humiliated one of her students by standing him up in front of the class to ask whether his father -- notoriously known as the town drunk -- had been out drinking the night before. The little boy knew the accusation was true but bravely announced "No." When the teacher mockingly asked him again, pressing him for "the truth," the boy was adamant: "NO!" Bonhoeffer's comment was that this little boy spoke more truth by his lie than if he had merely reported the "facts" to the class -- and thereby betrayed the dignity of his father... The truth is not some objective state of affairs that can be reported dispassionately. Without love as its context, such "truth" becomes a lie. Satan keeps his own books. It is said that Joseph never told Jacob the truth about his betrayal by his brothers, not even when Jacob was on his deathbed. His love forbade him to engage in lashon hara (evil speech) or to bring further pain to his father. May God help us all "speak the truth in love" -- or else help us to keep silent.
Jesus the disguised "Egyptian" 12.30.08 The Torah reading for this coming Shabbat (Vayigash) includes Judah's sincere expression of teshuvah (repentance) on behalf of his brothers for the betrayal of Joseph, an act that finally convinced the (disguised) brother to reveal his true identity: ani Yosef ha'od avi chai ("I am Joseph; is my father alive?").  Before this dramatic disclosure took place, however, Joseph (thought to be an unknown Egyptian satrap) ensnared his brothers by hiding a silver divination goblet in Benjamin's sack and then sending his steward (his son Manesseh) to arrest Benjamin for stealing the goblet. All this was designed by Joseph to test his brothers. Would they abandon Benjamin, just as they had abandoned him to die in an empty well years earlier? After the arrest, the brothers returned to face the charges, and Judah nobly stepped forward and begged to take Benjamin's place for the "crime." When Joseph understood that Judah was willing to sacrifice his own life for his brother -- and when he saw the anxious looks of his other brothers -- he realized that they had learned their lesson. Joseph then sent all the Egyptians out of the room, to spare his brothers embarrassment. According to Midrash, he then turned to his brothers and said, "You told me that your brother Joseph died. Are you sure?" "Yes, we are; he's dead," the brothers assured him. Joseph then became angry and said, "How can you lie? You sold him as a slave. I bought him and can call him right now." Joseph then called out, "Joseph, son of Jacob, come here right now to speak to your brothers." Terrified, the brothers turned to see if Joseph was coming. When Joseph saw that his brothers were prepared to meet their brother and ask for his forgiveness, he then spoke to them in Hebrew, "Who are you looking for? I am Joseph. |
