SETTING THE STAGE
Our Master Yeshua sums up the Torah and the Prophets in Mt. 7:12 more deeply in its Hebraic-Aramaic original that he would have said to his fellow Galilean Jews, as follows.
“…for-like, as a divine model this be the positive bearer of existence-actuality the Torah and in connection-connectedness the positive bearer of existence-actuality the Prophets”.
We rendered “be” rather than “is” since Hebrew and Aramaic have “be” but have no word “is”. KG does have “is” “estiv” (“estin”), which Matthew used in this KG rendering, and of course as English does.
The KG “estiv” (“estin”) is used to indicate present tense.
To translate – which is different than rendering – by “be” in English rather than “is”, is (no pun intended!) awkward.
The “key” – and why we try to render rather than translate – is to open up the original languages which with Hebrew especially, are much deeper than English.
We have the luxury to do so, which translators unfortunately do not. As we have pointed out elsewhere, the major problem with translation becomes conforming the original to fit the language of translation.
By rendering, we try to more deeply open up the depth of the original; in order to try to convey what the original speaker or speakers actually say in the language he/she/they actually used – which in no way was English – Olde or otherwise!
To return; in Yeshua’s Hebraic original “the” referring to the Torah and the Prophets is not merely – at all – to make them definite rather than indefinite. (English has what is called “the indefinite article “a”, which neither Hebrew nor KG does; “a door” for example, as opposed to “the door”).
As we point out in our teaching one of the great 19th century Torah teachers and philologists (word study expert, ironically a Greek-based word) astutely and correctly points out the following.
That “the” in Hebrew more deeply conveys not merely that something is “definite”, but rather “the positive bearer of existence-actuality”. It must – must – be remembered that “ivrit” “Hebrew”, is the only language the Father communicates directly to Man in!
Thus, is anything then truly simple or basic…
Hebrew – the Hebrew of Biblical Israel and its greats – rather than “Western Hebrew”, the Hebrew of non-Jewish translators and most Western scholars – is also unique.
As we have pointed out elsewhere, one of the great and profound Jewish teachers and thinkers of the 20th century says the following about Yeshua. What he says is based on Western Tradition’s post-Biblical de-Hebraicizing de-Judaizing and Greco-Romanizing of Yeshua Hamashiach, into “JC”.
To paraphrase, “how strange of God not to have deposited the Oracle of the Messiah if not in Delphi (home of the Oracle of Delphi) then at least in Athens”.
In other words, if the Mashiach is Greek and Greek-based – as Western Tradition propagates – how strange of God to have him born in Bet Lechem (“House of Bread” “Bethlehem”) rather than Greece.
“The little town of Bethlehem” as in a popular Christmas song, as shocking as it might seem, is not in the American Bible Belt. It is – in fact – less than a 15-minute bus ride south of Jerusalem!
We once visited a then new major apartment development built on a huge hill in part of the very southern end of Jerusalem. Down below the hill and across from it is a large, deep valley.
It was pointed out to us that if we drove to the top of the hill and looked south, across the valley, what we were seeing was the outskirts of Bet Lechem (“Bethlehem”)!
As we have pointed out in our teaching; imagine recasting William Shakespeare as an Orthodox Jewish writer living in Jerusalem, writing in the Jewish language of Yiddish (a mixture of Hebrew and German; popular among Jews of European ancestry until the mid-20th century). Very Orthodox Jews, especially in Israel, still use it as an everyday language, rather than Hebrew. Why? Hebrew is known in Hebrew as “the Holy tongue”. Since Hebrew is the language of the Hebrew Bible as well as prayer, it is seen by the ultra-Orthodox of European tradition at least, as too holy for everyday use.
The “key” question is: “Is a de-Anglicized de-Gentilized Judaized William Shakespeare, accurate and authentic”?
Thus, how much more – of infinitely greater import – is a de-Hebraicized de-Judaized Westernized “JC” rather than Yeshua Hamashiach, born in that Bet Lechem, who lived in Natzeret “Nazareth”, and who wept for (Lk. 19:41) and died just outside Jerusalem – and is returning there! (May we work to make it soon; cf. 2 Pet. 3:11-13).
The “key” is that Yeshua does not merely see the Torah and the Prophets as merely “definite”. Yeshua sees them as “the positive bearer of existence-actuality”.
To Yeshua, they were not the “OT”! If Yeshua thinks of them in that way, why doesn’t he ever – period – use the term?
Where is the post-Biblical OT-NT of post-Biblical Western Tradition in Yeshua’s Hebrew heart?
If there is the OT-NT dichotomy of post-Biblical Western Tradition, would it not have made sense for Yeshua to have taught so at the Last Passover Seder? (Not the “Last Supper” as Western Tradition historically portrays it).
How does this bear on love and filling full its potential?
The extremely “key” question is whether we view love as Yeshua emphasizes it – in effect love in action – love – do it(!), love as concrete.
Or is love to be thought of in term of Greek’s emphasis on concept-idea? Is love a concept; something we “believe” in and take a Greek-based position about? Is love passive?
Meaning, are we passive about it or hope it is something passively to be received from the LORD, and hopefully from others?
Is the latter – love as a position and of passivity – how Yeshua sees it?
We neglected to mention at the beginning that Mt. 7:12 is no isolated saying. It is “part of the whole” to put it Hebraically, of the Teaching On The Hill Mt. 5-7:24.
It should be noted as we point out elsewhere; that scholars very correctly point out that no 1st-century Israeli teacher – such as Yeshua (cf. Yochanon 20:16 et. al!) – would have given the quantity of material in Mt. 5-7:24, at one time.
The Teaching On The Hill Mt. 5-7:24 is the greatest – and even acknowledged as such by some non-following Jewish scholars – by what is known in Hebrew as a “standard or a measure on piety”, ever given.
To explain/render what “piety” in Hebrew really means is literally a book in itself! Suffice please that it is derived from the word for “abounding overflowing acts of royal lovingkindness-mercy”, “mercy translated into action”.
“Piety” in Hebrew reflects the Torah and Hebrew Bible’s emphasis on kindness, goodness, consideration for others, and godliness done to others.
A short but very “key” excursus on the Prophets: the Prophets’ “mission-function-purpose” was not primarily to “predict the future”. This very unfortunately is another subject Western Tradition misunderstands – because it understands it not from Hebrew, but rather from a non-Hebrew Western approach.
The Hebrew Prophets, whether recorded or only orally heard during their time, are a “channel” through whom the LORD speaks.
The Prophets’ primary mission-function-purpose is to turn the Israelites back to the LORD, to his Torah, and to each other in godliness when/if that was lacking.
In short also; this mission-function-purpose of turning the godly back to God and keeping them in line so to speak, is why Paul emphasizes prophecy over tongues in 1 Cor. 14!
The last thing the Corinthians needed to do – as both 1 and 2 Corinthians are clear – was to chase after more “ear tickling” (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3)!
The Corinthians – very badly – as Paul emphasized at the end of 1 Cor. 12, need to be shown “(a) way according to excellence” 1 Cor. 12:31. (KG “kath uperbolnv (“uperbolen”) odov (“odon”) umiv (“umin”).
Paul begins – for emphasis – 1 Cor. 12:31 with zeal (KG “znlowte”, “zeloute”) in comparison-contrast to what he finished v. 30 with, “very specifically the gifts very specifically the greater”. (Repeated articular accusative used to very specifically limit the focus on what is referred to here – very specifically – in effect “very specifically focus on the greater gifts!).
In short, Paul’s goes on immediately following this in 1 Cor. 13, to emphasize – greatly – love!
Further, there were three things the Corinthians were particularly intrigued, which indicates their still being rooted in the pagan religions – even as followers of Yeshua (!); “tongues”, knowledge, and “prophecy” (i.e., the pagan practice of trying to discern the future).
In short, Paul’s Greek for how all three of these will end/cease calls for particular notice. Unfortunately to pursue that here takes us ever further afield.
Love, Paul says, is most important. For those today there is a “key” question to ask.
Many followers today are focused on pursuing things which clearly have no reward/merit to them. Why then pursue these; rather than love?
A major appeal of the ancient pagan mystery cults was their providing a forum for the individualistic pursuit of spiritual self-indulgence and spiritual narcissism!
To return about the Prophets; which does Paul under Ruach Hakodesh inspiration emphasize in 1 Cor. 14? “Tongues”, or does he hope that prophets would be raised up among the Corinthians?
Why does Paul emphasize prophets? Did the Corinthians need people to “predict the future”? Clearly not!
What they needed were those who could get up and call out (!) the Corinthian assemblies when they got off the Way!
Paul’s understanding of the mission-function-purpose of a prophet is entirely based on that of the Prophets/prophets of the Hebrew Bible. Not – at all – that of the pagan cults!
In short, the pagan cults sought to know or tried to discern the future in order to try to manipulate their no god to give to them what the cult members wanted. (Sound all too familiar?).
The Hebrew Bible-based Prophet was not about changing or “manipulating” the LORD; but rather, to change the Israelites to go back to the LORD and His Torah!
It was also very much about turning the People to godly conduct and godliness that needed to be exercised among and between the People of the LORD.
Matthew caps off the greatest standard/measure on godliness to be exercised by Yeshua’s followers – with a very sobering warning by Mashiach Mt. 7:21-24.
Yeshua warns his fellow Galilean Jews, not to pursue what the Gentiles did! (Though in Mt. 7:21-24 unlike Mt. 5:46-48, 6:7-8, and 6:31-33, Yeshua does not explicitly speak of pagans/Gentiles).
Yeshua’s emphasis in Matthew 7:21-24?
“The one who does the will of the Father of me (who Be) in the Heavens” Mt. 7:21. Matthews KG – which unfortunately is not translated – is oupavois (“ouranois”), literally Heavens plural.
Heaven in Hebrew is in the plural. Matthews KG rendering thus reflects Yeshua’s Hebraic original.
We must note also that the Master speaks of does the will of the Father.
Not “believe” in it, nor take a “position” on it. Not “waiting” passively for it. Rather, the positive bearer of existence-actuality, the individual who does – the form indicates not “concept” but rather a real, concrete, present tense, continuous process!
Yeshua in Mt. 7:22 cites three things that pagans emphasized that were done in the name of a deity: prophesying, casting out demons, and many literally, “powers”, i.e., deeds of powers.
Are those what Yeshua illuminated about the Torah?
Yeshua clearly reiterated the Torah in Mt. 5:17-20, as we have opened up (we hope!) elsewhere. In short; Yeshua did not come, in the cultural context of 1st-century Israel, to destroy (God forbid!) the Torah and the Prophets by misinterpreting them.
As we have explained elsewhere on “fulfilled” at the end of Mt. 5:17; it is commonly misunderstood/misinterpreted, because it is taken from English.
As we have repeatedly repeated about David, when it comes to the Shine Forth Songs of Praise (Hebrew; English “Psalms” from the KG “Psalmois”, cf. Col. 3:16), English is as far from King David’s Hebrew heart as Los Angeles is from David’s greatly beloved Jerusalem!
Exactly the same for David’s son Yeshua (Lk. 1:32; cf. Mt. 1:1, Rom. 1:3, 9:4-5, 2 Tim. 2:8, Rev. 5:5, 22:16, etc.)! Yeshua no more thinks – or expresses – in English, any more than William Shakespeare wrote Hamlet in Hebrew or King Lear in the European Jewish language of Yiddish!
As we have opened up, we hope, Matthew’s KG rendering of an Hebraic original is a form of “pleroma”.
Pleroma is used by Paul in Eph. 3:19 in not one but two forms. Paul’s context is his desire that the brethren hearing his letter be filled full with the fullness of God!
Paul immediately precedes this in Eph. 3:19 in short, that this is by the knowledge of the love of the Mashiach, “in order that” (KG “iva” “ina”), (those hearing these words) again be filled full with the fullness of God.
Is Paul saying that this is “fulfilled”; thus ended; as the end of Mt. 5:17 is very mistakenly taken? As Paul says elsewhere in KG “mn genoito” “May (it) not be!” (Translated as “God forbid”).
In short not only is Yeshua’s thought-expression in Mt. 5:17 that of “filling full” the Torah, Mt. 5:18-19 clearly indicates that as well!
Further, what follows as we have repeatedly repeated about Mt. 5:17-7:24, is Yeshua’s illumination of the real essence of the Torah!
One very very respected evangelical scholar in his highly regarded commentary on Matthew says the following about Mt. 7:12 and the Golden Rule of do unto others.
First, that it is not original by Yeshua. It was originally said in a negative form in the earlier Apocryphal Book of Tobit, as well as by one of Israel’s greatest 1st-century teachers (one who Paul knew of well). As shocking as it may seem, Paul – in fact – never read Calvin’s Institutes of The Christian Religion!
Yeshua though turns “do not do unto others” into a positive; “do unto others”.
This scholar goes on to say that Mt. 7:12 (and the Golden Rule) sums up the Torah and the Prophets and is vital to the Kingdom of God!
Ironically, this scholar gives a lengthy explanation trying to explain away the continuance of the Torah in his comments on Mt. 5:17! Perhaps he did not realize that he wound up contradicting himself (?).
This scholar also frequently cites the Talmud (Jewish oral law and teaching, written down in the centuries after Yeshua) as sources of Yeshua’s words.
We had an opportunity to meet this scholar almost a quarter century ago.
He was regarded as perhaps the finest or one of the finest RCS scholars of his generation.
His response to us? He made a remark about a colleague who was very kind, gracious, and supportive of our work, “yeah he’s into all that Jewish stuff”, and literally turned and walked away from us.`
Why bring this up? “That Jewish stuff” is part and parcel of the Hebrew heart of virtually all the greats of the Bible; most of all Yeshua Hamashiach! It is very much part of love!
Are what is called in Hebrew “10 (of the) Words” known as “the 10 Commandments”, “that Jewish stuff”?
Are the Psalms – and the most beloved of them, the 23rd Psalm “(The) LORD (be) Shepherd of me” (Hebrew; English “the LORD is my Shepherd”) “that Jewish stuff”?
(Please see the Psalms window for a one-hour audio teaching summary on the 23rd Psalm. God willing much more to follow on this most beloved “Shine Forth Songs of Praise”!)
What has any of the above to do with filling full love’s unlimited potential?
What Mashiach illuminates about the real essence of Torah is necessary for filling full love. Why is the Hebraic approach needed?
Before we open up, we hope, more about our wonderful LORD and his Son Yeshua, let us return briefly to Eph. 3:19 since we brought it up above.
Paul speaks of the knowledge of the love of Yeshua. Paul begins Eph. 3:19 referring to knowing the “super surpassing” love of Mashiach. “Know” (KG here “gvwsai” “genosai”) is placed first for emphasis.
Paul in KG ties it in with the end of Eph. 3:18 by using Te, in short connecting it with what immediately proceeded regarding the height, breadth, and width at the end of Eph. 3:18, of the knowledge of the love of the Mashiach.
Paul begins Eph. 3:18 that he hopes that (the recipients of Ephesians) “gathered together in fellowship with” (KG “suv”) (“sun”) all the holy ones”, would know the “super surpassing” height, breadth, and width, of the love of the Mashiach.
Significantly, Paul uses the KG word “suv” (“sun”) for with. Why is it significant? It indicates gathered together in fellowship with, rather than merely “fellowship”. Had Paul not wanted to convey gathered together with he would have used the much more frequently used KG word for “with” “meta”.
Further, it should be noted; Paul says “suv pasiv tois agoios” “gathered together in fellowship with “pasiv” (“pasin”) “all” “specifically referring to those receiving the action” (articular dative used to specifically refer to whom receives this).
Please note; all the holy ones. All. Not “only those of your denomination” or only those who can “speak in tongues”.
There is no denominationalism with Paul based on theological hairsplitting!
As we point out elsewhere, we render the KG agios as holy ones in order to bring out the plural form of the original. “Saints” has a decidedly non-Hebrew non-Jewish ring to it; the Post-Biblical idea of it – especially in Romanism – is not how Paul thought of the holy ones.
Obviously, Paul is not saying that there is a – God forbid (!) – “filled thus ended” idea to the knowledge of the love of the Mashiach “fulfilled thus ended”, regarding the fullness of God!
To return to Mt. 5:17; Yeshua thus, again, fills full the Torah by illuminating its deeper essence.
Much of Mt. 5:17-7:24 has to do with what we call the horizontal dynamic of the work of the Cross. By horizontal dynamic we mean that Yeshua on the Cross and by means of it, makes possible the godly connectedness of man to man.
It is not only the reconciliation of Man to God that Mashiach achieves on the Cross. It is also that of the reconciliation of man to man!
Most especially: the reconciliation of Jew-Gentile as Paul elaborates on in Eph. 2:11-22, particularly and specifically vss. 14-17.
The larger context of Ephesians is Paul encouraging the Gentiles and the musterion “mystery” revealed to Paul, of Gentile inclusion as Gentiles.
The KG musterion-mystery means something previously unknown that was very profoundly spiritual that is now made known. Ephesians is – in fact – actually a very Jewish-Hebrew based letter, but that is another discussion.
In Ephesians 2:14-17 as we have opened up (we hope) elsewhere, Paul three times speaks of the shalom Yeshua made and makes.
Shalom, as we explain in our teaching, is no vague or general sense of peace. More deeply in part it is “not just the absence of negatives, but deep, positive piece…restoration of relationship…not just a superficial coexistence, but a harmony and an organic interaction”.
We said Yeshua both made and makes shalom, for this reason. In Eph. 2:14, shalom (Paul of course has to use the KG eirene but clearly thinks of the Hebrew shalom) is given in KG as a one-time action (called the aorist tense; used to indicate a summary of the action without regard to time, i.e., when).
At the end of Eph. 2:17, Paul says Yeshua makes shalom.
We point out the significant difference between “making peace” as translated, and Paul’s KG “makes peace”.
In short, Paul uses “makes” (present tense participle) deliberately to indicate it is the shalom between Jew-Gentile, as follows.
What the original hearers of Ephesians heard in KG was a form used to indicate there is now actually shalom between Jew and Gentile.
Interestingly, Paul does not use a form (called the perfect tense) to indicate either a completed action in the past with results at the time of the writing, i.e., “now”, or (same form depending on how understood) to indicate the current results of a completed action in the past.
(KG grammars emphasize that expositors of the RCS need to pay particular attention to the perfect tense when encountered).
We believe that Paul uses “makes shalom” at the end of Eph. 2:17 to try to make the hearers of Ephesians hear this.
That the shalom Yeshua accomplishes between Jew-Gentile is the result of the Yeshua’s work on the Cross.
Tragically – beyond words – in relatively short order this dynamic of the Cross went by the wayside! Why? Emerging Post-Biblical Gentile leadership failed to put their Self to death on their cross in the process being of “be on the path of me” that Yeshua speaks of in Mk. 8:34. Yeshua speaks of one’s cross with the idea of putting the Self to death. Cf. most especially Yochanon 12:24-26!
We believe one of the most “key” questions we could ask is, “is the horribly horrific suffering of Yeshua on the Cross (Mt. 27:45-46) fully honored by ignoring Yeshua’s horizontal reconciliation of Jew-Gentile and man to man, especially within the Body of Mashiach?
In 2 Cor. 5:14-21, Paul’s KG is not a “new in time”, i.e., brand new man, but rather a “renewed, new in quality” man.
Paul never speaks of a “brand-new man” but again in KG that of “(a) renewed, new in quality” man.
One evangelical commentator astutely and correctly points out, based on Paul’s use of a form of kainos “renewed, new in equality”, the following.
That Paul speaks not of a brand-new man but rather, “the old man properly reconstituted”.
2 Corinthians in general in part is Paul trying to get the Corinthians to reconcile, better, to come back to him. The Corinthians bailed out on Paul (!) for much more “charismatic personalities” and glib, ear-tickling (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3) orators.
These were highly prized in ancient Greek culture and some were sort of the ancient forerunner of the West’s infatuation with celebrity personalities (with or without gravitas).
Cf., especially 2 Cor. 10-13 and especially 2 Cor. 10:10 and 2 Cor. 11:2-6. Cf. also 2 Cor. 13:5.
(Acts 18:11 says Paul spent “(a) year and six months teaching the word of the God” (in KG) to the Corinthians. Paul expended great effort towards them as 1 and 2 Corinthians show! “Charisma” “came along” and sadly the Corinthians abandoned Paul’s substance, for the “style” of others.)
In what was Paul’s very last Letter, his second Letter to his beloved son (in the LORD) Timothy, Paul warns Timothy about what he (Paul) increasingly encountered. This was probably influenced by Paul’s very difficult situation with the Corinthians; as again, both 1 and 2 Cor. all too clearly show.
This is seen most especially in what has been called Paul’s most personal writing, 2 Cor. 10-13.
In 2 Cor. 11:3 in KG, Paul expresses literally that he is terrified that as Eve was deceived by the Serpent so the Corinthians – collectively – (KG “umwv” “umon” – you – plural) – may be led astray from the Mashiach.
Paul opens 2 Cor. 11:3 with a form of phobos, i.e., phobia and in KG places this first for emphasis. Though translated typically as “I am afraid”, Paul’s KG is both stronger and begins with his fear rather than “I am”.
Paul goes on to emphasize in 2 Cor. 11:4 how good/beautifully (KG “kalws” “kalos”) the Corinthians receive the proclaiming of another Mashiach, a different spirit, or another gospel, then what he proclaimed to them!
Paul’s KG emphasis is more on how “kalws” (“kalos”) good/beautifully the Corinthians received “etepov” (“eteron”) “another”, (i.e., messiah, spirit, or “gospel”).
We feel Paul’s emphasis is on how “good” (in KG) the Corinthians received “another”, because it is near the end of 2 Cor. 11:4. In KG, things are generally placed first or last for emphasis (according to KG grammars).
We should note: Paul – once again – draws on the Torah; this time by referring to the fact that Eve was deceived. Serpent in Hebrew is from a verb “to charm, to beguile; change future through magic”.
In short for here, what did the Serpent appeal to with Eve? What did Eve let get the better of her cf. Gen. 3:4-6 v. 5? In a word – her Self.
What was truly insidiously deceptive by the Serpent was that in Hebrew “you” is plural in Gen. 3:5. Not on the day “you eat” singular, but rather “you – plural”, i.e., on the day
both her and Adam collectively do so. The insidious deception was that though the serpent spoke of “you-plural”, does the Torah tell us Adam and Eve were both together? No. The Serpent very insidiously speaks to Eve when apparently she was alone at that time!
Does Eve go to Adam, so they could hear this together, as the, in Hebrew in part “compound oneness absolute one” they were, Gen. 2:24? (The Hebrew “one” does not translate nor is it easy to render, as there is no single English word equivalent; nor is there one (no pun intended!) in KG. When Yeshua speaks of being one with the Father and that followers be one with them, it is based – and originally expressed – in Hebrew Yochanon 17:20-23).
That the Hebrew one cannot be translated in KG is well evidenced by Yochanon in Yochanon 10:30. Yochanon’s KG rendering of Yeshua’s Hebraic original regarding he (Yeshua) and the Father, is “ev” (“en”) esmev (“esmen”) “one we are”.
This greatly puzzled the Early Gentile Fathers! Had they not pushed away their Jewish brothers, the Jewish brothers could have explained Yeshua’s Hebraic original – and that Yochanon had no KG equivalent to use!
To return, Eve allowed herself to be drawn in. Was she threatened by the Serpent? Was she forced to eat from the one tree they could not eat from? No. Eve allowed her Self to be “charmed, beguiled”. The Serpent, was bent on “changing the future through magic”.
Is the Serpent not the ultimate model of Self? In short for here, this appeal to Self is exactly what the Serpent tries to do with our wonderful Master Yeshua during Yeshua’s temptations in the wilderness Lk. 4:1-13.
In short: Luke’s KG rendering in Lk. 4:6-7 shows an emphasis on you, referring to Yeshua, by the Serpent. The Serpent tries the same tactic in the same type of setting with Yeshua, as with Eve long before.
Get someone alone; and appeal to their Self!
The Serpent is so completely, totally, utterly self-absorbed, he does not realize that Mashiach has no Self!
As we pointed out above, the Corinthians – as followers of Yeshua – are still far too Self focused, 1 Cor. 3:1-5 and 1 Cor. 14 as well (!).
A “key” for the Corinthians that they failed to realize, that we can? The Corinthians did not realize the “key”; that we cannot add “believe” in with the things the Torah in Hebrew calls “(of) foreignness” (i.e., of meaning, being sourced from or rooted in foreignness).
Cf. Gen. 35:1-5 and most especially Dt. 17:15, there regarding what a king of Israel cannot be.
A king of Israel by the LORD’s own revelation Dt. 17:14-16 v. 15 cannot be, more deeply in Hebrew, “(a) man (at the highest spiritual level) of foreignness”.
This is extremely “key” for understanding that Yeshua Hamashiach cannot be a de-Hebraicized, de-Judaized Greek-Roman-Latin-pagan religion/culture “English” based, “JC”.
Israel’s Mashiach – who is that of the World – cannot be merely ethnically Jewish, yet spiritually rooted in and of foreignness!
Not only do the Corinthians show what happens when foreignness – including the often-emphasized Self focus of the ancient pagan religions – is mixed in with belief in Yeshua, so do a number of others! Cf. Rev. 2-3.
Paul had problems with the Roman Gentile followers of Yeshua as well as later with the Colossians and the wider area of Ephesus. (Ephesians is thought by many commentators to actually be addressed to a wider area than Ephesus. It is thought of as what is called a universal Letter, rather than a local Letter, such as those originally addressed to a specific location such as 1 and 2 Corinthians).
Both Peter and Judah (not “Jude”!) writing in the 60’s or so, a few decades after Yeshua, very clearly had to deal with false teaching about Mashiach. (2 Peter more so than 1 Peter. Cf. 2 Pet. 1:16 in KG “we did not follow clever wisdom myths”. Cf. 2 Pet. 2:1-2).
Rev. 2-3 received by Yochanon (Revelation 1:1) 90-95 should be noted as being Yeshua’s only message post-resurrection to seven – Gentile – assemblies.
In short Rev. 2-3 is what the Torah calls in Hebrew an “admonishing rebuke”! These seven assemblies are taken to task by Mashiach, for having either gotten away from the Truth, or of having brought in the things of foreignness!
We should more accurately point out these are not just seven assemblies but rather seven cities with multiple assemblies in each!
(As a quick side note, we once again point out that references in Rev. 2:9 and Rev. 3:9, in historical-cultural context, are not addressed to Jewish brothers. Yeshua refers to the first “wannabes”; Gentile followers who are “wannabe” Jews and to those playing “Jewish”. (This unfortunately has returned in the last few decades. Cf. Kohelet “preacher” Eccl. 1:9).
The natural question one might ask is, “What has all this to do with filling full love’s unlimited potential? What has this to do with an Hebraic approach to love?”
Yeshua may take his fellow Galilean Jews to task for a number of things. So too, Jacob in his Letter (not “James”!) and the unknown author of Hebrews. Paul’s difficulty at times with his fellow Jewish brothers in short is not their Self focus, or their spiritual narcissism or spiritual self-indulgence of the pagans (cf. 1 Cor. 14, especially 1 Cor. 14:33!).
In short, Paul’s difficulty with his fellow Jewish brothers was primarily with the Circumcision faction, those who wanted to shove some practices of the Torah down the Gentiles’ throats. (What really set Paul off was the Circumcision faction’s belief that circumcision was required for salvation. Cf. Acts 15:1, and especially Gal. 2:3, 5:1-3).
The modern-day Western Tradition focus-emphasis on Self is not the issue for 1st-century Jews, most especially those in Israel’s “we-us-our” culture.
Yeshua – more than a couple of times – in fact holds out the pagans/Gentiles as an example to his fellow Galilean Jews, not to be and do as! Cf. Matthew 5:47, 6:7, 6:31-33, Luke 12:29-31.
Is there – anywhere – anywhere – where Yeshua holds up pagan-Gentile religions, spirituality, or practices or customs, for his fellow Jews to take in and exercise outwardly, in becoming followers of him? If so – where?
It should be noted that though Luke’s Gospel in part is traditionally seen as an apologetic (defense) for the inclusion of Gentiles, nowhere does it show Yeshua speaking well of Gentiles as a whole.
A few individuals are held up as being on the right path towards Mashiach, but not the pagans/Gentiles as a whole.
The “key” is this: Yeshua’s inclusion of the Gentiles – after the Jews – cf. Yochanon 10:16 etc., includes that the pagan/Gentile ways of the Nations are to be completely excluded!
In short: the Gentile – as a Gentile – has a mission-function-purpose. God loves him/her too! However, their pagan/Gentile understanding, thinking, will, and action, must go!
This – very very much (!) – the focus on Self – has to be put to death; not focused on as historical and especially contemporary Western Tradition’s focus-emphasis! There are – in fact – according to a Greek concordance far more uses of you – plural – than you – singular. (778 more uses of you plural plus 865 uses in KG of ‘we-us-our’).
Paul took the Corinthians to task on this thought in various ways in 1 and 2 Corinthians. See especially 1 Cor. 3:1-5, 8, 11:17 on, 12:12-27, chapter 14, 2 Cor. 6:14-7:2, cf. Paul taking them to task, as above, for abandoning him for more “appealing” teachers in 2 Cor. 10-13.
Paul also took the Colossians to task and made it imperative in Col. 3:5, that they put to death their character and conduct towards each other, that is rooted in the earthly way of living!
We neglected to point out above Paul’s warning to his beloved Timothy in 2 Tim. 4:3-4, in v. 3, that a time is coming when, in KG, “absolutely specifically (articular genitive; used to indicate “absolute”) of the healthy teaching (“ouk” – strongly in fact (they will) not bear with”.
It should be noted that Paul is “absolutely specific”. (Again, the articular genitive should be noted. It is used in this instance we believe, with its idea of something specifically absolute). Paul says that a time is coming when sound teaching will no longer be sought after.
It should also be noted that Paul uses – deliberately – “ouk”, a stronger form of “no” than the usual word for “no” “ou”. Thus we rendered, “strongly in fact not” to bring out Paul’s KG, to bring out Paul’s stronger KG than English.
Another “key” that we must point out here or we would be negligent. Paul is not talking about people not putting up with sound “doctrine”.
Paul actually uses “didaskalias” “teaching” – not “doctrine”. Paul also uses in 2 Tim. 4:3 the very related word “didaskalous”, typically translated “teachers”.
As we point out in our teaching, there in fact is no KG word “doctrine”. “Didaskalias” “teaching”, as well as “didaxe” “construct, instruction”, are spun the post-Biblically by Western tradition.
Why? In order to try to get the Text to seem like it speaks along the lines of the Traditions of Men Agenda.
In short for here; Paul was first re-cast by Romanism as “St. Paul, the Roman Catholic”, then by the “Reformers” as “Paul the first Calvinist”! In order to do so, Paul needs to sound like the “Reformers”. So then, it is sound doctrine that people will not bear. (The KJV, NRSV, and NIV all translate “didaskalias” as “doctrine”. Yet they all translate “didaskalous”, again both words being of the same root, as “teachers”).
To return, Paul’s warning-emphasis to Timothy in 2 Tim. 4:3-4, is different than his warning to the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 11:3-4 above – that people will be led away by their teachers.
Paul’s warning to Timothy is that people will “alla kata tas idias epithymias eautois” “but in strong contrast according specifically to their own lust (they) themselves, will heap up teachers tickling, very specifically, the ear”.
The “key” is that people will eautois “themselves”, in effect look for (i.e., from themselves, in KG “they will heap up”) teachers, telling them what their itching ear wants to hear!
In 2 Tim. 4:3, it is not the teachers who lead people away from sound teaching; rather people will do this eautois (upon) themselves. People will turn themselves away from sound teaching!
2 Tim. 4:4 is connected, not separate from, v. 3 in KG. Verse 4 begins in KG with kai “and”, thus connecting it Hebraically with what immediately proceeded. Further, Paul emphasizes in KG by using “mev” (“men”) “therefore ‘absolutely specifically of the truth’, very specifically the ear will turn away”.
Paul begins 2 Tim. 4:4 with “kai apo mev (“men”) tns (“tes”) alntheias” “and in connection (with what I just said) away from, therefore absolutely specifically of the truth”. In other words, people will separate themselves off from the Truth.
Paul’s KG for “from” is striking here. Paul uses apo “from”, which is used in KG to indicate “from, separate off from the outside”.
By contrast, whenever Yeshua is referred to as coming/being from the Jewish people, it is always the following. Ek “from” in the sense of “out from within them”. Not “separated off from the outside” of the Jewish people, but always “out from within”.
In Yochanon 4:22, Yochanon renders Yeshua’s original Aramaic conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well of a Samaritan village as follows.
“…the salvation – ek – out from within the Jews is”.
In Yochanon – and everywhere else – Yeshua, regarding being from the Jewish People, is always seen as out from within them; not separated off from the outside of them!
Very significantly – and completely, completely, completely missed by the Western Tradition Traditions of Men Agenda, is this “key”.
That Yeshua is seen as part of the whole of the Jewish people – still!
Yeshua’s own words – his own words – have him expressing that “the salvation be of the Jews”. KG technical grammars regarding Yochanon’s KG rendering call this form a partitive genitive, meaning it is a KG form used to indicate something that is part of the whole. Further, that it is Hebraic-based usage! (Cf., Daniel Wallace’s highly regarded Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics).
Extremely significantly; had Yochanon seen Yeshua as not (God forbid!) “part of the whole of the Jews”, but rather “separated off from the outside”, Yochanon’s KG would have reflected this. It does not!
Yochanon’s KG rendering would have been instead that Yeshua is not “ek” “out from within”, but rather, “apo” “separated off from the outside”.
In Rev. 5:5, Yochanon’s KG rendering is also once again, that Yeshua is the Lion “out from within specifically the tribe of Judah”.
Not, “separated off from outside the tribe of Judah”, but rather “out from within the tribe of Judah”. We believe Yochanon’s KG here in Rev. 5:5 is also a partitive genitive, as Yochanon 4:22 indicating that Yeshua is part of the whole of the tribe of Judah!
Christians are not only not taught this, they are subtly or directly taught that Yeshua – at best – was minimally Jewish; or not even that. Yeshua was only “ethnically Jewish” and even that, for only a short period of time; because when the Jews rejected him, he rejected the Jews”. (As Rom. 11:15 is misinterpreted. The KG form properly interpreted (subjective rather than objective genitive) – indicates the Jewish People are thus subject doing the rejection; not the object rejected).
Thus, the process of Western Tradition’s de-Hebraicizing de-Judaizing of Yeshua, and recasting him as a Greco-Roman, “generic” everyman, is to separate Yeshua from the Jewish People.
Western Tradition’s Greco-Roman-pagan cult-based Agenda, cannot have a Savior as being part of the whole of “the Jews” – that Western Tradition rejected and turned from.
What has this to do with filling full love, and doing so Hebraically?
To return briefly to 2 Tim. 4:3-4; people will turn themselves away, they will “apo” “separate from the outside of the Truth”. They will pursue in effect what the Self wants to hear! Not what is sound teaching, but instead “will heap up” teachers that “tell me what I want to hear, not the truth I need to hear”.
We have mentioned above that Paul ran into this with the Corinthians. In context, what Paul writes to Timothy in 2 Timothy – his last letter – in the early to no later than 64 1st– century or so, is about a dozen years after 2 Corinthians (or at the very least a decade).
Paul presumably increasingly ran into the problem of former pagans who had become followers of Yeshua, chasing after those who told them what their ears desired rather than sound teaching!
Had Paul only encountered this problem with the Corinthians, it is hard to imagine Paul pointing this out to Timothy a dozen years later.
Paul’s reference at the start of 2 Tim. 4:3 to a time when followers will “strongly in fact not bear with healthy teaching” may well reflect the following.
Acts 18:11 tells us Paul spent “a year and six months teaching the Word of the God in Corinth”. This would have been the Hebrew Scriptures, for two reasons. There was no “NT” at this time, early 50s. Much of it had yet to be inspired! The only Gospel would have been Mark and possibly Luke. Matthew and Yochanon did not yet exist. Neither did the bulk of Paul’s writings!
No more than 1 Thessalonians and Galatians (we take Galatians as written earlier rather than later) yet existed. Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Philemon, and the Pastoral Letters (as they are called) in chronological order, 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy, came later.
1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Yochanon’s writings – 22% of the RCS – alone – were not there yet for the followers of Yeshua in the first few decades after the Resurrection.
In fact, had you come to Yeshua say 20-30 years after his Resurrection and followed him for 20–30 years before going home to the Kingdom, you never would have heard most of the RCS – and certainly nothing of Yochanon!
You may or may not have heard the Letter of Jacob if you were Gentile, since that was initially sent by Jacob from Jerusalem to fellow Jewish brothers in the Diaspora (outside Israel).
You have been taught that the Hebrew Scriptures are “the Old Testament”.
Is that the Master Yeshua’s term? Is that the term Yeshua uses? If so, how many times? Where – exactly – does Yeshua refer to the word of God as “the Old Testament”!
God willing more to follow