De-Paganizing Christmas

St Boniface (680–754)

After being appointed by the Pope as a missionary to the Germanic tribes, Boniface spent the rest of his life evangelizing the areas of modern Germany and parts of the Netherlands. He also became a friend of the Frankish court and helped reform and reorganized the Church in that area. From his missionary travels, Boniface knew that in winter the inhabitants of the village of Geismar gathered around a huge old oak tree (known as the “Thunder Oak”) dedicated to the god Thor. This annual event of worship centered on sacrificing a human, usually a small child, to the pagan god. Boniface desired to convert the village by destroying the Thunder Oak, which the pagans had previously boasted the God of Boniface could not destroy, so he gathered a few companions and journeyed to Geismar.
His fellow missionaries were scared and fearful that the Germans might kill them, so they balked when they reached the outskirts of the village on Christmas Eve. Boniface steadied the nerves of his friends and as they approached the pagan gathering he said, “Here is the Thunder Oak; and here the cross of Christ shall break the hammer of the false god Thor.”[4] Boniface and his friends arrived at the time of the sacrifice, which was interrupted by their presence. In a show of great trust in God and born from a desire to enkindle the fire of Christ in the German pagans, Boniface grabbed an axe and chopped down the Thunder Oak of mighty Thor.
The Germans were astounded. The holy bishop preached the Gospel to the people and used a little fir tree that was behind the now felled oak tree as a tool of evangelization. Pointing to it he said,

“This little tree, a young child of the forest, shall be your holy tree tonight. It is the wood of peace… It is the sign of an endless life, for its leaves are ever green. See how it points upward to heaven. Let this be called the tree of the Christ-child; gather about it, not in the wild wood, but in your own homes; there it will shelter no deeds of blood, but loving gifts and rites of kindness.”

Awed by the destruction of the oak tree and Boniface’s preaching, the Germans were baptized.
Because of this, the practice grew of German families bringing a Fir (or pine) tree into their homes instead of worshiping the "Thunder Oak."  This also ceased the practice of child sacrifice to the "thunder oak."  Thus, this victory over death and this promise of eternal life is the birth of the Christmas tree.

Another famous German, Martin Luther, who was the father of the Protestant Reformation, is credited with something else... one evening, Martin was walking outside and, looking up, saw the majesty of the stars in the sky and the glory of God in the heavens.  Desiring to have that beauty in his own home, Martin went back to his house and began to hang candles on his Christmas tree, making him the first person to light the tree.

The first Christmas trees began appearing inside Buckingham Palace in the early 1800s, and solidified as a practice of the Royal Family after Queen Victoria married her German cousin, Prince Albert.  Thus, with Albert, the practice spread from Germany to England, and given the popularity of the Royal family, who were not only the authorities but also great celebrities, soon many homes had a Christmas tree in them.

Thus, the origin of the Christmas tree is not only entirely Christian, but also very anti-Pagan.




Santa Clause

In the Third century, in Turkey, a boy named Nicholas was born.  Nicholas was raised by wealthy parents as a devout Christian, but both parents died of a plague sometime before the boy reached adulthood, and he inherited a substantial sum of money.

But moved by Christ's words to the rich man to "sell everything you have and give to the poor," Nicholas gave away his entire fortune.  One story goes that a father of three daughters had nothing to give for their dowries, and thus was unable to have them married off.  Unmarried women at that time were often forced to support themselves in whatever way possible, and this usually meant working in some very un-Christian areas.  Nicholas, moved with compassion for these three girls, tossed bags of gold through the window to pay for their dowries.  Some versions of the story say that the gold landed in socks which were hung by the fireplace to dry, and it is from these stories what we get the modern practice of hanging stockings by the fireplace and filling them with gifts.

Nicholas, because of his extreme generosity and excessive piety, was quickly promoted to Bishop of Myra, and was later cast into prison during the persecution of Diocletian. He was released after the accession of Constantine and was present at the Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD.  This council was responsible for solidifying the understanding within Christianity of the Deity of Christ and of Christ's relationship with the Father... in essence, the early understanding of the Trinity.  The council was also responsible for fixing the date of Easter on the church calendar, and for early work on the codification of the Cannon... that is, deciding what books belonged in the Bible.

There is a story from the Council of Nicea regarding Arias, who is the father of the Arian heresy. Arias taught that Jesus was created by the Father, and thus was a subordinate being... that is, that Jesus was little more than a great prophet or a mighty angel.  Bishop Nicholas, so incensed at this teaching, leapt from his seat, rushed to the stage, and punched Arias in the mouth.

Bishop Nicholas died on December 6th, but the year is not well known.  It was sometime between 343 and 352 AD.

Bishop Nicholas was later confirmed as a Saint by the church, and the idea of "Saint Nicholas" was born.  There are many other stories of St. Nicholas, many of which are likely fabrications as his legend grew, but St. Nicholas soon found himself as the patron saint of many things, including bakers, pawn brokers, sailors, and especially, Children.

Over time, as the fame of St. Nicholas spread, so too did the pronunciation of his name.  In Norway, for example, he became known as "Scinter Klause," which is a minor evolution of the name in the Norwegian tongue, and when the Norse immigrated to America, the brought with them the legends of Santa Clause.

Then, in 1823, a poet named Clement Moore wrote the work we all remember him for, "A Visit from St. Nicholas," which begins "T'was the night before Christmas, and all through the house..."  The legends of St. Nicholas grew from there, and later Santa Clause took shape when Coca Cola adopted him for their advertising.  The story goes that St. Nicholas acquired his trademark red hat, coat, trousers, and boots from the red and white coca cola cans, but this isn't the case... ancient depictions of St. Nicholas show him wearing a very similar garb long before Coke made him and advertising figure.  He wore a Bishop's Miter instead of the stocking cap we know him with, and instead of the coat and trousers he wore a long red robe with white trim, but red and white are the traditional colors of the clergy of Turkey, probably because red symbolizes the Blood of Christ and white symbolizes the righteousness Christ brings.


Is Christmas pagan?

No.  There is no sense in which Christmas is a pagan celebration.  The world often accuses us of co-opting the Roman winter festival of Saturnalia for the date, but even this is incorrect.  Saturnalia was a week-long festival beginning on December 17th and going through December 23rd.  If we were going to borrow the date for Christmas, we would likely have use one of those dates.

There is no sense in which Christmas is a pagan holiday, and every sense in which is it not.  Although it is not ordained in the bible as a commanded holiday, it is the one season every year where we hear the gospel message on every radio station and loudspeaker in the country... Joy to the world, the LORD has come.  Let Earth receive her King!  Let every heart prepare Him room, and heaven and nature sing.

Correcting the WWUTT guys on the NAME of God

Normally, the WWUTT guys are spot on. This one is problematic, though. In the past, the letter "J" has done double duty by making the "Y" sound, as in the word "Hallelujah." We have retained both the "Y" pronunciation of the "J" as well as the old spelling of "Hallelujah," and that makes this just about the perfect example for this illustration.

So, in antiquity, the English "J" has done double duty as a "Y." (In the same way the "C" does double duty as both an S and a K, as in the words "city" and "cat.")

In the second century, after the fall of the Temple, the Jews continued to rebel against the Romans. So Rome made it a crime to speak the name of the Jewish God in public... Read THIS article on "Rabbi Haninah ben Teradion" to find someone executed for "speaking the NAME as it is written." The Romans wrapped him in a Torah scroll and lit him on fire. Shortly after this comes the ban on speaking the NAME from the Jews.

How do I know?

For a very clear example, take a look at Ruth 2:4, where both Jewish nobility and Jewish peasantry speak the name openly to one another.... but really, in the OT, the name appears almost 7000 times, and was obviously in very common use.

So how is it pronounced? Take a look at the following image:





 This is the NAME of God written, with all the vowels, from the Aleppo codex from the 10th century... a thousand years ago, and 600 years before the video suggests that someone borrowed the vowels from another word and changed the HOLY NAME of God.

From right to left, those letters are

Yud........... י

Hay............ה

Vav.............ו

Hay............ה

or "YHVH" like we transliterate them. But every Hebrew letter must be followed by a vowel... the vowels are the dots and dashes above and below the letters.

so the Yud is followed by a "schwa," which makes the same sound as the "schwa" in English.. that is, a short "eh" sound.

The next letter is an "Hay." It has no vowel either above or below it... its vowel is above the "Vav," which follows. That vowel, the dot above the Vav, is called the "Cholem," and makes the "o" sound.

The final vowel is below the Vav, and is the "Kamatz." it makes the short "a" sound, or "ah."

The final letter is another "hay," which ends the word by slightly extending the "ah" sound of the "Kamatz."

According to the Aleppo codex, published in the 10th century, the proper pronunciation is

Yehovah.

Now, remember how the "J" used to do double duty as a "Y?"

Jehovah is the ancient English spelling of Yehovah, which actually is the proper NAME of God.



For MUCH more information on this (and MANY other Hebrew topics!!) check out the work of my good friend Nehemia Gordon at his site, www.nehemiaswall.com

The Language of Heaven

While doing preparation for a recent Bible Study on Revelation 19, I discovered an amazing thing.
I know what language they speak in Heaven.

Let me show you.

Revelation 19:1-2a reads:

After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out, 
“Hallelujah! 
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, 
for his judgments are true and just;

The author, commonly thought to be St. John the Apostle, is looking into the end times with the help of the Holy Spirit, and the last judgments on the earth are about to be completed.


But look what he says in 19:1...

"After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out,"

He's telling us what the voices from Heaven said, and that's all well and good, but the interesting thing is this word...

“Hallelujah!"

I thought that was an interesting word, so I dug into it a bit to see what I could find.  The Greek word is "Ἁλληλουϊά," and in the ESV (English Standard Version, my preferred translation) the word appears exactly 4 times.  All four of those occurrences are right here, in Revelation 19.

That can't be right, I thought.  "Hallelujah" is a Hebrew phrase, meaning "Praise the LORD," or more specifically, "Praise Yah," where "Yah" is the poetic form of the Holy NAME of God.

But the Revelation was written in Greek, according to most scholars.

Well, I thought, surely it appears elsewhere in the Bible, possibly in the Hebrew?

Since the phrase means "Praise the LORD," I looked for that, and found the Hebrew phrase

הַלְלוּ־יָהּ

occurs 23 times in the Old Testament, all in the Psalms.  The first occurrence is in Psalm 104:35, the final occurrence in Psalm 150:6.  150:6 is the final verse of the Psalms, and so the book ends with the phrase
הַלְלוּ־יָהּ, or "Praise the LORD!"

So, armed with this knowledge, I went back to the Revelation and looked more closely at the Greek.

The Greek word "Ἁλληλουϊά," pronounced "Alleluia," has no meaning.

None.

Then it hit me, suddenly; John is recording what he is hearing from Heaven.  Ἁλληλουϊά is not a translation, it's a transliteration.

By this, I mean, John records the sound of the word he hears, rather than its meaning.

What sound did he hear?

הַלְלוּ־יָהּ

Hallelujah

Heaven speaks Hebrew.

The great Rabbi, Rashi, called Hebrew "לשון הקודש"... Lashon haKodesh.  The Holy Language.

I completely agree.

Atheists can too be moral!

We're not saying that Atheists cannot BE moral, we're saying they cannot tell us WHY they are moral, or why other people are not moral.

What does that mean?

It means that you can say "X is moral, and Y is immoral." But you cannot say WHY those things are so. You can say "Society has dictated that X is moral, and Y is not," but that is a flimsy argument. Based on that argument, we must conclude that the practice of Bride Burning in India was a moral thing, because it was the societal norm. (When a man would die, his widow would be thrown onto his funeral pyre to die, most often against her will.)

Was it ever moral to burn the widow? For the Atheist who demands that society determines morality, we must say yes, it was a moral thing to do.

Other atheists will say "I determine my own morality." This is an even worse argument. Why? Because you and Jeffry Dahmer are both autonomous beings. If you think it's immoral to kill and eat people, but Jeffy disagrees, to what standard will you direct him to show that he is wrong and you are right? To society? We've dealt with that. To your own sense of morality? Why is yours better than his?

Someone once asked the great Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias why he was so afraid of moral relativism. Ravi responded brilliantly: "Do you lock your doors at night?"

We're all fine with our own morality, but we want other people to behave as we do. For instance, one person might say that X is perfectly moral when he does it, but be outraged when someone else does X to him. As C.S. Lewis writes:

"But the most remarkable thing is this. whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking on to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?"

Another common answer from the Atheist is that morality comes from nature. But what we find in Nature is far different from our understanding of morality. For instance, only a few species mate for life. Most species will engage in reproductive acts with several others, often in the same mating season. While this sounds good on the surface, why do people then get upset when their spouse or significant other cheats on them? Isn't that just nature?

One more brief example for morality from nature: After copulation, the female praying mantis kills and consumes her partner. Nature is not the source of our morality.

Allow me to end with another C.S. Lewis quote, and I'll thank you for having read this far:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

Wait, I say, upon Aviv

Jesus or Yeshua? What's the deal?

The word "Jesus" appears nowhere in written form before the 16th century. It was used in the first modern English translation of the Bible and was created by William Tyndale.


Where does it come from? It's a transliteration of a transliteration of a transliteration.


What does that mean?


A transliteration is different from a translation, in that a transliteration attempts to preserve the sound of the original word, rather than its meaning. It's often done with names. The first man mentioned in the Bible, for instance, doesn't actually have a name. The Hebrew word "אָדָם" simply means "the man," but we transliterate it as "Adam," which mimics the sound of the word, without giving its meaning.


Now, Jesus had a rather common name for the time. His name was "יְהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ", which is transliterated "Yehoshua." This is also the name of Moses' lieutenant, Joshua. Translated, it means "The Salvation of the LORD."

But linguistic convention being what it is, names get shortened. We don't often call a man "Laurence," we call him "Larry." "Michael" becomes "Mike." and by the Second Temple Period, "יְהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ" had been shortened to "יֵשׁוּע"... that is to say, Yehoshua had been shortened to Yeshua.


So in Hebrew it is Yeshua...

יְשֻׁ֣וֹעַ

and it gets transliterated into Greek, which is

Ἰησοῦς (Yaysous)

which is a transliteration, not a translation. Then it goes from Greek into Latin and is spelled

Jesu

(which is still pronounced Yaysu, by the way... this pronunciation of the letter "J" is preserved in the word "Hallelujah.")

and from Latin it gets transliterated into to English as "Jesus" in a time when the J could do double duty, making the sound it makes in "jar" or possibly making the "Y" sound like in "Hallelujah."


In fact, there was an 11th century copy of the New Testament written in period English (called Old English) which calls His name

Haelend

because Haelend is the TRANSLATION of the Hebrew word, and means "Savior."


So the reality is, people call His name "Yeshua" because that's what His friends called him in that day.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it Holy

Christians get all bent out of shape when you tell them

Exodus 31:16....  Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.

and then couple that with

Romans 11:17....  But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 

If we are grafted in to Israel, are we not, in a sense, Israel?  Certainly not ethnically, but we are children of Abraham, according to the promise.

If, then, the Sabbath commandment is "a covenant forever," did forever end?  The Hebrew word here meaning "forever" is "עוֹלָם" (Olam) which literally means the Universe... heaven and earth.  "Forever," in this case, ends when heaven and earth pass away.  When does Heaven and Earth pass away?  In Revelation 21:1.

Now, IF we are commanded to keep the Sabbath "as a covenant forever," what does it mean to "keep" the Sabbath?

The Torah prohibits 2 things on the Sabbath:  Doing work (Exodus 20:8), and "kindle(ing) a fire in any of your dwellings."  (Exodus 35:3)

That's it.  You're even allowed to go camping and start a fire outside of your tent if you want.  You just can't start a fire inside your tent.

How do we spend the Sabbath?  Please notice, nowhere in any commandment does it say we must assemble for regular worship on the Sabbath.  Jesus did it because every other day of the week was a daily struggle for survival... every other day of the week, everyone was out in the fields or in the marketplace... Shabbat (the name of the 7th day) was literally the only opportunity to gather anywhere.

But we're not commanded to "go to church" on Shabbat.  What are we commanded to do?

The Hebrew root for the word Shabbat is the three letters, שבת, Shin, Bet, Tav.  Those three letters mean, simply, "cease."  Stop what you're doing.  It's saying, every other day you work.  You work hard all day, every other day... today, you stop it.  Today, you rest.  Today, you take care of yourself.

How do you do that?

Play a video game.  Read a book.  Make love to your spouse.  Take a nap.  Invite friends over for coffee.

Literally, THAT'S what we're commanded to do.

Why do Christians fight against that?  We're like toddlers balling our fists and yelling at our mommies that no, we won't go to bed, when we're already too tired to stand up.  It's silly.

Ok, one more thing in this book of a rant before I close it:  What day should we "cease?"  Paul tells us not to let anyone judge us on account of our day of rest.  That is to say, it's nobody else's business.  What does that mean?

When I, as a Methodist, tell people I keep a 7th day Shabbat, I get judged.  "You know you don't have to do that, right?  You know Jesus set you free from the chains of Shabbat, right?  You know Jesus is our sabbath rest, right?"

I love my Christian brothers and sisters... I really do.  LORD bless them, they're doing the best they know how.  But they're judging me, in direct contradiction to what Paul said.  Paul didn't say "Move the Sabbath," Paul said "It's nobody else's business when you take your shabbat."

So if your job requires you to "cease" on a Wednesday, then you "cease" on a Wednesday.  But for heaven's sake, DO IT.  That's not a day for you to get caught up on work... that's a day for you to remember to rest.

As for me, I think it's pretty clear.  The Hebrews didn't have names for their days... the day we call
Sunday was simply known as "One."  Monday was "Two."  Wednesday was "Three."  You get the picture.

The only day that DID have a special name was the 7th day, which was not called "Seven," it was called "Shabbat."

So on the 7th day of each week, I rest from whatever labors I had the week before.  I try to focus my attention on heavenly things.  I listen to a few sermons, or I read more scripture than usual, or I set aside time for prayer.  And, if at all possible, I take a nap.

Paul said don't judge. =)

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

So lets say you have a friend named Dave. and as we're talking, I mention my friend, who is also named Dave.

You look at me suspiciously: My Dave lives in Columbus.
I look back suspiciously: My Dave also lives in Columbus.

You smile: My Dave lives on High Street.
I grin: My Dave also lives on High Street.

You say: My Dave is a banker.
I say: My Dave is also a banker.

You say: My Dave drives a white car.
I say: My Dave also drives a white car.

You say: My Dave loves his son very much.
I say: My Dave doesn't have any children.

Is it possible we're talking about the same Dave? No. No it's not.

And say, "Praise to Allah , who has not taken a son and has had no partner in [His] dominion and has no [need of a] protector out of weakness; and glorify Him with [great] glorification."  (Quran 17:111)

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (Quran  112:1-4) 

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. (Quran 19:35) 

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  (John 3:16)

Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4)

When we want to know if two people in question are the same person, like the two men named Dave in the opening example, we need to compare their attributes.  Are these two men exactly the same in every way?  We may find thousands of similarities between the two... they could both have beards, they could both have wives named Susan, they could both be graduates of the same university... but it is only necessary to find a single, irrefutable discrepancy to make the call.  In this case, I think, the teaching is very clear.

Days and Years

Today, much of the Christian church celebrates that holiday-which-must-not-be-named.  (See the blog post before this one if that intrigues you).  For many years, I’ve called it “Resurrection Sunday,” and been quite pleased with that.  Recently, I’ve started calling it what it is… Pesakh, or Passover. 

But this year, there is an interesting lesson in the timing of the day that sheds light on our worldview, and it is this about which I wish to briefly write. 

What is today?

We mark it with a name… “March,” and then we number the days in March… so this is the 27^th day of March. 

Was Yeshua raised from the dead on the 27^th of March?  Because in 2015, the Church celebrated Resurrection Sunday on April 5^th.  And next year, in 2017, the Church will celebrate Resurrection Sunday on April 16^th. 

But it gets better:  This year, the Hebrew calendar has 13 months.  So the Hebrew festival of Passover, which is very closely tied to the Christian observance of Resurrection Sunday, happens almost a month from now.  Exactly when?  We can’t be sure, because the new month doesn’t start until two witnesses report to the Sanhedron that they saw the New Moon over Jerusalem.  And 14 days after THAT… That will be Passover.  

What’s the point?

The point is this: Human calendars are arbitrary.  There’s more to it than all of that, and I’m sure some of my readers will have strenuous points to make on this issue, but a date… like March 27^th… is just a date.  If we chose to remember an event on that day, that doesn’t mean that event happened exactly 365.25 x 1984 days ago.  That means this is the date we chose to remember it. 

God’s calendar, based on the Aviv barley and the sighting of the New moon, is always in flux to some degree… this year, the barley was not Aviv.  Perhaps Jerusalem will be cloudy on the first two days of the new moon, and the month will begin two months late. 

Since calendars are so malleable, does it really make sense to get upset with your brother or your sister regarding which date they chose to remember an event?  

Should we let “soft facts” create hard hearts?

To my Christian brothers and sisters who celebrate Resurrection Sunday this morning, I want to say this:  May the Joy of the Triumphant Risen Christ fill your hearts and homes this and every day!

To my Karaite and Messianic brothers and sisters who will celebrate Pesakh next month, I want to say this:
May you savor each moment of the anticipation of that Holy day!

To my Orthodox Jewish brothers and sisters, I want to say this:
Pesakh Samech!

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is, when brothers dwell together in unity!

The Holiday Which Must Not Be Named

My dear, dear fellow Christians,

As of this writing, we are almost one month past Valentine's day.  The next holiday is not yet upon us, but I'm already seeing the telltale signs... stores piled with candy and pastel baskets, seasonal "Egg" shaped candy in the convenience stores, and angry posts from Atheists, Pagans, and Messianics all decrying the coming day.

I know, I know!  I hate grouping those three demographics together too!

Sadly, on this issue, they are of one accord.

The Atheists are all like "You're worshiping a rabbit that lays eggs!  How dumb can you be?"

The Pagans are all like "Hey, that's our holiday!  You got the date wrong, and the name, and, like, umm, most of the things, but you did remember the rabbit and the eggs!"

And the Messianics are all like "You're worshiping a rabbit that lays eggs!  How dumb can you be?"

I love Messianics.  I really do.  Heck, on my good days, when I'm Obedient to the Master, I even love the Pagans and the Atheists.

But the Messianics have something to teach us (that the Catholics already know!  Can you believe this?  The Messianics and the Catholics agreeing??) that the Protestant church, as a whole, needs to understand.

This Holiday-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named that is coming up is actually ordained by God. The first 28 verses of Exodus 12 teach us about it.  In Matthew 26:18, the Master says

“Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep (The-Holiday-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named) at your house with my disciples.’ ”

So it's not one of those things we can even argue about whether or not we, as Christians, are supposed to still do... The Master did it, we should as well.

So how do we do that?  We adopt the Jewish name for it, first of all.  Get rid of the E-word and call it what it really is...

PASSOVER

Maybe, if you want to get closer to the Hebrew, you can call it

Pesakh

If you want to get REALLY close to the Hebrew, you can call it

פֶּ֫סַח

But whatever you call it, do yourself a favor: get rid of the E-word, the bunny, and the eggs.  Unless they're made of peanut butter and coated with chocolate.   

Jesus, Moses, and Paul: Christians and the Torah

It is the opinion of some scholars that Christianity would not be what it is without Paul.  I have even read that, in the opinion of some of them, Paul changed what Jesus taught.  Dr. Bart Ehrman, for example, teaches that Paul's teaching on circumcision in Galatians 5:2 was in response to Jewish men going to the Gym (where Greek men exercised in the nude) and feeling socially ostracized because they looked different.  So, according to Dr. Ehrman, Paul undoes the Torah to make the Jewish men feel more accepted in Greek society.

But what does the Scripture say?

Acts 24:14-15 (ESV)

14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

Acts 25:7-8 (ESV)

7 When he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him that they could not prove. 8 Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.”

And finally,

Acts 26:30-32 (ESV)

30 Then the king rose, and the governor and Bernice and those who were sitting with them. 31 And when they had withdrawn, they said to one another, “This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment.” 32 And Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.” 

Now obviously there's significantly more here than is relevant to this topic, but I do want to point out that Paul is accused by the Jewish leaders of violating Jewish law and tried in a court which is so friendly to the Jewish leadership that.... "desiring to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison..." for two years. (Acts 24:27)  This court, which stole two years of the man's life because it wanted to be friendly to the Jewish leadership, was unable to find Paul guilty of violating Jewish teaching.

Think about that a moment.

The court was hostile to Paul and looking to appease the Jewish leadership, and when presented with the evidence, could only say “This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment.”

What does that teach us?

PAUL TAUGHT TORAH.

Yeah, I know.  That stings a bit, doesn't it?

"But, A.J.," you say, "Didn't Paul teach not to obey the sabbath?  Didn't Paul teach not to circumcise?  Didn't Paul teach...."

What happens when you go back and look at those passages from the other perspective... the one I've just given you?  You'll find, I think, that we do not live in a binary universe.  That these things are complex and nuanced issues which simply cannot be understood in a single soundbyte.

"But A.J.," you say, "Didn't Jesus do away with the Torah?  Wasn't the law nailed to the Cross?"

Matthew 5:17-19 (ESV) says

 “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.  For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Now, Christians... when does Heaven and Earth pass away?

Revelation 21:1 (ESV)

 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

So how are we to respond to the Law?  We see that Jesus taught the Law.  We see that Paul taught the Law.

Let's put this another way:

Which of the Laws would you like to break?  I recently heard a very well known prosperity gospel preacher tell an audience of hundreds of thousands that they were not bound by the Law, no, not even by "the big ten."

The Big Ten?  Since I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about football, I'm going to assume he meant the Ten Commandments.

Things like 

"You shall have no other gods before Me,"

or

"You shall not steal,"

or

"You shall not commit adultery."

Which of these would you like to violate?

You instinctively know that none of THESE laws are passed away.  None of THESE laws were "nailed to the Cross."  You are not "free," oh Christian, to sleep with your brother's wife. 

The argument is often made "We're only beholden to those laws which are repeated in the New Testament. This is why we don't have to keep the Sabbath."

Exodus 31:16 (ESV)

Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.

"But I'm not Israel," you may say.  

Are you not grafted in?

No, you don't replace Israel, but you are Abraham's children, right?

This is not a call to legalism.  And by no means am I saying our salvation comes through our ability to follow the Law... but nobody was ever saved by following the Law... not even Moses.

It's not a salvational issue.  It's a matter of realizing who you are, and who God is.  If your employer tells you to take out the garbage, even if that's not the job you were hired for, you take out the garbage.  Why?  Because he's paying you.

How much more should you do for the one who created and redeemed you?

The Root and Branch of Jesse, and the Son of David.

A Jewish friend recently asked me how Jesus (Yeshua) could be “a true descendant of King David and King Solomon, and from the tribe of Judah.”  Below is my response to her.  It grew so long, I thought it would make a good blog post as well. 

I assume you're speaking of the blood curse on Jehoiachin from Jeremiah 22:30.  Jehoiachin was the legal successor from David, but Jehoiachin was so wicked that God declared that none of his children would ever sit on the throne. 

This presents a problem for Jews as well, since The Messiah has to be David's heir, but because of Jehoiachin, none of David's blood descendants from the male line can ever sit on the throne of David, and The Messiah must reign from the throne of David. 

First, in good Jewish fashion, I must tell you another story which will inform this one. 

In Numbers 27, verses 1-11, we read the story of the daughters of Zelophehad.  Zelophehad had five daughters and no sons, and his daughters realized that because of this, his portion of the inheritance of the land would be lost, since it must pass to a male heir.  Moses wisely rules that if the daughters marry men of their tribes, they can receive their father's inheritance of land.  This establishes a legal precedent:  a female can be legally the equal of a male, even if there are no male heirs, if she marries within the tribe.  Once she does, the land belonging to her father and the land belonging to her husband both belong to their family.

Does that make sense?

Ok.  So we go to the New Testament, and we trace the genealogy of Yeshua.  We have to know something about the gospels at this point, too:  Matthew was of the Tribe of Levi.  Matthew's gospel is VERY Jewish.  Written by a Levite to a Jewish audience.  Matthew has a genealogy of Yeshua in his first chapter, and this genealogy begins with Abraham.  Why?  Because Abraham was the first Jew, and in a sense, nobody before Abraham matters.  Matthew wants to focus on Yeshua's Jewishness.  So he traces the lineage from Abraham through David through Solomon through Jechoniah (with the special footnote that Jechoniah was the king at the time of the exile to Babylon.   That means that Jechoniah and Jehoiachin are the same person).  Matthew is aware of the blood curse on Jehoiachin, but he continues to trace the male lineage all the way to Joseph, the husband of Mary.  Hold that fact in your mind for a moment:  Mary's husband, Yeshua's legal father, was a descendant of David through Jehoiachin.

Now we look at Luke's gospel.  Luke has a genealogy as well, but it is a bit different in some respects.  Luke was a physician, and much of his book focuses on the humanity of Yeshua.  Luke, for instance, gives us the best birth narrative, because being born is a very human thing.  Mark, for example, gives no birth narrative, and that fits with Mark's theme as well.

Anyway, Luke focusses on Yeshua's humanity.  So he starts his genealogy with Adam, because Adam is the first man.  And he goes through Abraham, to David, but then he turns and goes through Nathan, another son of David by Bathsheba, rather than Solomon. It is at that point the two genealogies diverge, and they are different until they come back to Joseph.  But here is another problem:  Both genealogies claim to belong to Joseph, the legal father of Yeshua. 

We find, however, that it’s just an interesting coincidence.  One Joseph is the son of a man named Heli (Luke 3:23) and the other Joseph is the son of a man named Jacob (Matthew 1:16).  It is very likely (for this and other reasons) that Mary was the daughter of a man named Joseph, and she also married a man named Joseph.  This has been speculated on for the last 2000 years… some of the ancient church fathers wrote about this.  There is likely an error in the Greek text of Matthew which is fixed when we turn to the Hebrew text of Matthew (another story for another time, but Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, possibly making versions in both languages… Matthew was the Levite after all!).  In Matthew’s Hebrew gospel, Joseph is the “strong man” or “guardian” of Mary (Matthew 1:16), which possibly means adoptive father.  Regardless, she was also a biological descendant of David, through the non-corrupted line.



Let me make this as clear as possible:  No legal descendant of David after Jehoiachin could sit on the throne of David.  But the Messiah MUST come from this line, to have legal claim to the throne AND be the fulfillment of God’s promise to David.  Messiah MUST come from David’s line, and He MUST sit on the throne of Israel forever. 



Yeshua is LITERALLY the only person in the world with legal claim to the throne of David, because of this.

God accomplishes this using Torah.  The daughters of Zelophehad story from Numbers makes clear that Mary is legally allowed to inherit David’s throne for her son if she marries within the tribe.  But her child cannot have the blood of Jehoiachin in his veins, because of the blood curse God pronounces in Jeremiah 22:30.  But since the Word of GOD is perfect, and cannot be broken, God accomplishes this very thing with a VIRGIN BIRTH. =)  Yeshua has all the legal rights which He inherits from His legal father, Joseph, but none of Joseph’s blood.  He is a direct biological descendant of David through Mary, His only human parent, and because of the Torah story of the daughters of Zelophehad, Yeshua has legal right to inherit everything she was to receive from her father as well. 

Now here’s where it all comes together:  Thanks to the story of the daughters of Zelophehad, a woman who marries within her tribe can inherit land and title from her father.  In this case, Mary’s father is David, several generations back.  Joseph is the direct male descendant of David through the male line, and if Jehoiachin hadn’t messed it up, Joseph would have been on the throne of Israel.  But Joseph was not Yeshua’s BIOLOGICAL father, only his legal one.

The Evolution of Dr. Dawkins's Morality

In his book "The God Delusion," Dr. Richard Dawkins said this:

"As Einstein said, 'If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. ' Michael Shermer, In The Science of Good and Evil, calls it a debate stopper. If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would 'commit robbery, rape, and murder', you reveal yourself as an immoral person, 'and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you'. If, on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.  I suspect that quite a lot of religious people do think religion is what motivates them to be good, especially if they belong to one of those faiths that systematically exploits personal guilt.
It seems to me to require quite a low self-regard to think that, should belief in God suddenly vanish from the world, we would all become callous and selfish hedonists, with no kindness, no charity, no generosity, nothing that would deserve the name of goodness."

The primary fallacy, as I see it, is this:  Without God there is no good or evil.  That is to say, if man is the final arbiter of what is good, then what is good for you may not be good for me.

Suppose we speak of a little thing like lying; I hold that it is best to be truthful, but you see nothing wrong with telling a small lie, perhaps to avoid hurting a person's feelings.... Yes, honey, that dress looks great on you.  We have already diverged in our morality.

But the divergences don't have to be tiny.

Suppose I believe that the highest aim of humanity is reproduction, not only because the act feels good but because it propagates the species.  It could then be quite easy for me to justify not only rampant philandering, but polygamy and perhaps even rape.  And if I should come to the conclusion that rape is an excellent way to propagate my genes, who could tell me I'm wrong?  Man is the final arbiter of morality... what is right for you is not necessarily right for me.

Thus, without the existence of an objective, moral law giver... that is, someone outside of humanity to tell us what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong,

there 

would 

BE 

NO 

GOOD

OR 

EVIL, 

just as Dr. Dawkins himself realizes in his later book "A River out of Eden," when he says

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

Please note: This is NOT to say that atheists cannot be moral people, but only to say that they cannot justify the existence of morality satisfactorily.  They offer a wide array of explanations for it.  My favorite one is that morality evolved along with genetics, but this gives us an ever shifting morality.  What is the problem with that?  It suggests the possibility of a period in history where things like rape and slavery were not only accepted, but acceptable, and further suggests that at some point yet future, those things might once again be acceptable.  Thus, the atheist who takes this approach cannot say that anything is objectively wrong, for all peoples and at all places and at all times, but only that such a thing is wrong here and now.  So the American atheist cannot decry the evils of slavery in a place like Africa, where it still exists, but can only say that the African morality has followed a divergent evolutionary track.

In the end, then, we find this:  Dawkins, in his appeal to people being moral, appeals to the existence of God in an attempt to make his argument that God does not exist.  As Dr. Frank Turek says, Dawkins must sit on God's lap to slap Him in His face.

A simple defense of the Divinity of Christ

Mark 14:60-64 reads

"And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death."

It is important to understand the High Priest's reaction... he's a man who knows the Old Testament very, very well. He would have to be, in order to be the High Priest.

So when he tears his robes (which is a violation of the law of Moses for the High Priest to do) he is emphasizing the horror of what Jesus has just said.

What has Jesus just said?

He begins with "I am," which is what God spoke to Moses from the burning bush. He's quoting from Exodus 3. Then he quotes from Daniel 7, when he says "You shall see the son of man seated at the right hand of the power" and also from Daniel 7 "and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Why are these significant? Because who sits at the King's right hand? His son. His son sits there so he can learn from his father how to be king, but also because HE IS EQUAL to his father... or, at least, he will someday be.

In Daniel 7, we read

"and behold, with the clouds of heaven

there came one like a son of man,

and he came to the Ancient of Days

and was presented before him.

And to him was given dominion

and glory and a kingdom,

that all peoples, nations, and languages

should serve him;

his dominion is an everlasting dominion,

which shall not pass away,

and his kingdom one

that shall not be destroyed."

Notice the elements of this one: The "Son of Man" phrase, and him coming on the "clouds of heaven." But then notice what happens to the Son of Man.... to Him is given dominion and glory over ALL PEOPLES and nations and languages FOREVER.

To whom do all peoples, languages, and nations owe allegiance forever? To God alone, right?

The High Priest FULLY understands what Jesus is saying here, and this is why he tears his robe. THIS is the blasphemy he declares, and THIS is why Jesus is crucified. Not for claiming to be Messiah... there were other men who claimed that title, that wasn't blasphemy... but for claiming to be GOD HIMSELF.

And You Shall Love

וְאָ֣הַבְתָּ֔

Veh-ah-have-tah.

And You Shall Love.

This magnificent word begins BOTH of the greatest commandments. 

In Matthew 22:35-40, it reads

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

The Teacher is here quoting from Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5.  In the Hebrew, both of these statements begin with that one beautiful word.

וְאָ֣הַבְתָּ֔

This is what separates Judeo-Christianity from other faiths.  The Rabbis tell the story of the destruction of the second temple.  Every year, on the 9^th day of the Hebrew month of Av (called Tisha b’Av), the Jews weep and mourn for the loss of the temple.  Every year, for the last 2000 years, they cry.  I join with them in their weeping.  Why was the temple destroyed?  One answer is that the Romans wanted to crush the Jewish rebellions and burned it, then dismantled it to get the gold that had melted between the stones.  But that’s the “how” of it, not the “why.”  Why would God allow His House to be destroyed?

וְאָ֣הַבְתָּ֔

The Rabbis tell us that the Jewish people had forgotten to love their fellow as themselves.  Think about it.  The Jewish people had forgotten to love the Romans in the same way they loved themselves. 

Let that sink in. 

Because the Romans were an oppressive government.  Their taxes were harsh, their punishments were brutal.  To crucify a criminal is not just to execute him, it’s to hang him on public display, so the whole world can watch his final moments of humiliation and agony.  And those “final moments” can be eight or ten or twelve hours, depending on when the sun set that day (Jews couldn’t leave anyone hanging on a “tree” after sundown, according to Deuteronomy 21:23). 

These were the Romans.  These horrible oppressors, these violent dictators, these wicked men, it is these the Jews failed to love. 

It is because of THAT failure that the Temple was destroyed. 

Who is God calling you to love?

Are they worse than the Romans?

If you fail in this calling, what horrible thing might result?

If you succeed in this calling, what good thing may happen?

Remember the 9^th of Av. 

וְאָ֣הַבְתָּ֔