I don't know why the first thing most Christian evangelists do after leading someone to faith is to tell them that the law is done away with. That is ridiculous. The law of sin and death is done away with. I do not think Paul was telling Christians to disregard YHWH's Loving Instruction. Yeshua's Feasts & Sabbaths are for the whole house of Israel. He came to restore us to the Father and to each other.
As the Apostle Matthew was also called Levi it is possible he was a Levite and therefore the most likely too have the education to write a Gospel in Hebrew.
One of the possible confirmations of this is that the way he structued the Sermon on the Mount (differently from the similar Sermon on the Plain) is based on the layout and celebrations of the Temple.
For a breakdown of how i recommend this book published by the Society of Old Testament Studies.
I spoke to Nehemia Gordon in about 1997. (Sorry, I don't address anyone as "Dr." who is in the religious or philosophical profession.) Nehemia was touring the U.S. with Michael Rude, the leader of a Messianic cultlike organization called A Rude Awakening, headquartered in Israel. I was very much familiar with the organization Micheal previously belonged to. Michael had a TV show in which he was dressed in Jewish priestly garb. Over the years Michael's prophetic statements continually failed to come to pass. There were also financial scandals. His organization still produces a TV show. There were about 1,200 people in attendance at the event in Kansas City in 1997. I specifically attended in order to talk to Nehemia Gordon. I was most interested and excited about his discovery of a Hebrew gospel of Matthew. I had written a paper over the previous year on the reason Matthew wrote his gospel. His gospel is similar to Mark and Luke yet all three have differences. I met Nehemia, his wife and some of his children. They all seemed to be good people. I liked them. The gist of my paper was that I found the answer why Matthew divided his gospel into sections which all scholars are aware of, but they don't know what the purpose is. Nehemia's response was, "Why should I care?" His answer astounded me. Nehemia spent countless hours translating and studying the Hebrew Matthew, yet he wasn't interested in why Matthew arranged his gospel as he did. It was a sort of cop out, similar to the way Nehemia evaded certain questions Naomi broached. What I was so excited about was that I discovered Matthew arranged the events and teachings of Jesus (or Yeshua) in sections which exactly corresponded to the readings of the Hebrew Bible which were read on the seven Biblical Festivals. For example, on Shavuot (Pentecost), the Jews celebrate the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. They read the lengthy Ps. 119 which is all about the Law. The first part of Matthew's gospel is about Jesus' birth and coming back out of Egypt when Herod died. It was the time of the Passover. Israel marched to Mt. Sinai and received the Law on the mountain. The first of five distinct sections of Matthew's gospel is the "second giving of the Law". Jesus is on a mountain. His first words are the eight beatitudes beginning with "Blessed are the poor in spirit" just as Ps 119 begins with an eight-verse stanza with "Blessed are they whose way is blameless". Matthew, after giving the eight beatitudes goes on to have Jesus give a dissertation on each beatitude, beginning in typical Jewish manner with the last beatitude and working towards the first beatitude. Ps. 119 is read as part of the Jewish liturgy which is read on Shavuot.
The same is true regarding the next four sections in Matthew. He arranged his material to relate to the liturgy read on each of the following Biblical festivals of Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Succot. Finally, it's a full year and Passover again arrives. Matthew ends his gospel with the Passover death of Jesus, well not exactly ends it. He has Jesus telling his disciples to make disciples throughout the world and instructing them to obey what Jesus commanded. Jesus' ministry only lasted one year. (Back to Michael Rude: He was correct to teach that Jesus' ministry only lasted one year, but his "proofs" were all erroneous, as was the year of Jesus' ministry.)
Naomi is right. The 1st century Christians were ungovernable, either by the Jewish authorities or the Roman government. Maybe that's why tyrannies hate Christians and Jews.
One of my favorite books is The Separation of Church and Faith: Copernicus and the Jews by Daniel Gruber (2005). It is along the lines of the topic in this interview. I would like to say that my respect and admiration for Dan is not solely through reading his books. I attended Torah studies that he taught for about 15 years (~2001-2017), learning from him nearly every week during those years. My appreciation for his wisdom only increased during that time.
The book is dedicated to “those who died in the night.” It is organized into two sections: “Finding the Center” and “Rebuilding the Highway.”
Chapter one sets the stage - what it is about Copernicus that gave the book its subtitle. Astronomy and epicycles. Deferents and eccentrics. Planets, the sun, and the earth.
Chapter two - “Parlez-vous Jewish Greek? The ‘New Testament’ is a Jewish Greek Document Written in Jewish Greek” - explains the language of the “new testament,” its origin, and how to determine word usages and meanings. The Septuagint (translation of Tanach into Greek) is vitally important in this process.
Chapter three - “Dr. Frankenstein’s Neighborhood Bible Club: The Bible Does Not Contain a New Testament or an Old Testament” takes on the mistranslation of the Greek word “diatheke,” which is from the Hebrew word “brit.” When translated into Latin, an error was made, which was then perpetuated in English, as well as many (most/all?) other languages. There is no word in the Bible anywhere that can accurately be translated as “testament.” There are no wills or “testaments” anywhere in the Bible and to label sections of the Bible with this designation is inaccurate, misleading, and detrimental.
Chapter four - “A Good Church is Hard to Find: There is No Church in the Bible” - discusses the mistranslations of the Greek words “ekklesia” and “sunagoge.” The original Hebrew words are “kahal” and “edah.” Sometimes the translators of the Messianic Writings appear to intentionally mistranslate these words to validate their theology or maybe their theology blinded them to what the actual text says. An eye-opening explanation.
Chapter five - “Office Directory: Transliteration Creates the Illusion of Christian Religious Offices” is an exploration of why translators might choose to transliterate instead of translating words, how that may be necessary or beneficial in some instances and how it can be misleading and inappropriate - even deceptive - in others.
Chapter six - “The People Came to Him: The Jews Responded Positively to Yeshua” goes into detail about how the Jewish people flocked to hear Yeshua speak and how they admired and loved him. Every verse that shows the people’s response to Yeshua in the four accounts of Yeshua’s life is quoted as evidence, in case there is any doubt.
Chapter seven - “Theopolitical Rulers: The Rulers Had Him Killed” - shows how differently the majority of the political and religious leaders reacted to Yeshua, compared to the people that followed Him and crowded around to hear him.
Chapter eight is entitled “John’s ιουδαιοι: Bad Translation Distorts Reality.” This chapter explains how one word can have a variety of meanings and the importance of translating it in its context. An example given is the various meanings of “Yankee.”
Chapter nine is called “Das Herrenvolk und Des Herrn Volk: In the Bible ‘The People of God’ Are The Jews.” This should go without saying, but due to replacement theology, it is necessary to say and show this basic fact.
Chapter ten - “A Little Case of Mistaken Identity: There Are No Christians in the Bible” - deals with another translation issue. Do words matter? Can’t we just use a word however we want to use it, with our own definition of it? There’s a bit about Romeo and Juliet and roses. Some about how the confusion came about. Who gets to determine the meanings of words? Is it helpful, useful, or accurate to use an incorrect word with thousands of years of baggage?
Chapter eleven is “What Are You Doing on Sunday? Sunday is Neither the Lord’s Day nor a New Sabbath.” That pretty much tells the story, but the explanation is worth reading. :)
Chapter twelve is “Those Pearly Gates: The Followers of Yeshua Will Rule Upon the Earth.” This chapter begins with a lengthy quote from Golda Meir. The sections in this chapter cover:
1. Confusion about where Yeshua will reign
2. The improper identification of the new Jerusalem as heaven
3. The church cutting itself off from Israel’s olive tree
4. A neo-platonic understanding of the relationship of the physical and the spiritual realms
Chapter thirteen: “A Dispatch From the Front: The Good News is that the Kingdom of God is Coming to this Planet.”
1. The good news is a call to turn to the God of Israel and serve Him.
2. The good news is the means of fulfilling God’s oath to Abraham to make him a great nation.
3. The good news is the means of fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham to make him the context of blessing for all nations.
4. Israel is God’s first-born son.
5. Israel is God’s portion.
6. The good news is the means of fulfilling God’s promises to Israel.
7. The center of the good news is “Messiah, i.e. the King of the Jews, crucified.”
8. The good news is the good news of the kingdom, and the coming Kingdom of God is the restored Davidic kingdom.
9. Israel is God’s means for bringing the good news to all the earth.
10. The good news is fulfilled through God’s New Covenant relationship with the Jewish people.
11. Salvation is from the Jews.
12. God does not show favoritism.
Chapter fourteen completes the first section with “A Tale of Two Bumblebees: God Never Established Any Religion.” A must-read is the story of the two bumblebees, but my favorite quote from the whole book, which I quote often is from this chapter (page 186):
“It was the best of religions; it was the worst of religions. It brought life, love, and compassion to a dark and cruel world. It also brought torture, repression, ignorance, slavery, and death to an innocent world. It burned with Light and Truth. It also burned the Bible and those who believed it.
“Those who adhered to it built universities, hospitals, and orphanages. They also justified poverty, exploitation, war, and conquest. They brought food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, work to the destitute, and hope to the hopeless. They filled the earth with contempt for man, contempt for God's creation, and contempt for God.
“What is this thing called ‘Christianity’? The Bible does not tell us. The Bible talks about something else.”
I’ve gotten you halfway through the book. For “Rebuilding the Highway,” I encourage you to get a copy.
I highly recommend reading this whole book. It is excellent for anyone who cares about the Bible, the God of Israel, Yeshua, Truth, etc.
There are also audio teachings of each chapter of the book available at Dan’s website, elijahnet.net, in the lower right corner.
I liked your comment and I'm ordering the book. However, I totally disagree with you on Chapter 11's title and your comment: “'What Are You Doing on Sunday? Sunday is Neither the Lord’s Day nor a New Sabbath.' That pretty much tells the story, but the explanation is worth reading. :)"
It's very simple, just read carefully the NT. In all usages of the terms "God" and "Lord", with only one or two exceptions, "God" always refers to Yahweh, the one and only God of the OT, whereas "Lord" always refers to Yeshua or Jesus, whatever you wish to call him. Now go to Paul's letter to the Romans, chp. 14. Paul is addressing the question of whether it's okay to be a vegetarian or not. Paul basically says don't condemn the other side, but each side should do what they think is right. He says their master, the "Lord", is able to make him stand. The "Lord" is Jesus. Then Paul uses the example of those who consider one day as more sacred or special than another day. He says each person should be fully convinced in his own mind. He says the one side who regards one day as special, "does so to the Lord" (NIV). On the other hand, Paul says those who do not regard one day as more special are equally doing what is okay. Scholars are perplexed as to what Paul is talking about. Most scholars are convinced Paul is not talking about the Sabbath, as he would never talk that way about the Sabbath. I think the answer is obvious. If the people were regarding a day of the week as more special than the other days of the week and are doing so "unto the Lord" i.e. Jesus, it would be Sunday that Paul was referring to. Jesus was raised from the dead by God on a Sunday morning. It was only natural that many early Christians would consider that day as special. Paul was saying if you want to observe Sunday as special, that's fine. If you did not want to observe Sunday, that's equally fine. The Sabbath is not the subject being addressed. Paul and the early Church always observed the Sabbath.
By the way, I have observed the Sabbath for over sixty years. I choose not to consider Sunday as more special than any other day of the week. Occasionally I will visit a Sunday keeping church and fellowship with the people there. I will also visit synagogues now and then and fellowship there. There are some wonderful people in both, and we should not be so condemning.
Don’t mean to nitpick, but Yeshua was raised from the grave Saturday evening after sundown/beginning of the next day Sunday, completing three days and three nights—- Wednesday sundown to Saturday sundown.
Yes, Yeshua appeared to Miriam of Magdala Sunday morning.
Thank you, Joseph. You are not nitpicking. It is a very important issue, since everything about Jesus' ministry is important. For over thirty years I believed just as you do, except I believed Jesus was raised late Sabbath afternoon. Of course, I don't believe it now. We could have a great discussion on it. What I would urge is study, study, study, and not pay attention to the opinions of others, including mine. At the same time pray seriously for understanding of what is the truth, not that God would help you see one side or another. My best wishes to you.
I would like to share some test-based literary criticism of the four gospels of Jesus. It's a long story, sorry!
The Bible, Tanakh and New Testament alike, was utilized orally, up until fairly recently (last 500 years). We in the 20th/21st century don't experience it this way, though, generally. A dozen years ago I heard the Bible (Genesis, actually) read long-from on the radio and was absolutely blown away by it. The story of Isaac and Rachel came absolutely alive. I was driving from Fairfield to Sacramento, California, for dinner. I know exactly where and when I was. It was life-altering.
I acquired Alexander Scourby's reading of the King James Bible, an amazing reading of it. When hearing it, the source of the gospels became very clear (in my perception). There is a clarion voice in it. The gospel of Mark comes from (again, in my perception) Peter telling stories. It explains the random order. Even in English, you hear the blunt language of a rural fisherman. I was stunned and listened to much of the New Testament to hear more. And sure enough; his voice is also very clear in the Gospel of Matthew; in much of the Gospel of John (longer story there); less so in the Gospel of Luke; in Peter's second epistle; and the Book of Hebrews.
So, if I had any interest in going to seminary, here would be my thesis: there is no written Book of Q. The Gospel of Matthew was not derived from the Gospel of Mark. Both of those gospels came from the same source: the spoken record of the eyewitness Peter.
There is a Part 2, though. Not all of the writings attributed to Peter sound like this voice that I have identified as Peter's. The quotations of Peter in the Book of Acts sound completely different. It is like a biblical scholar grabbed Peter's name and wrote something theological. Even Peter's first epistle is recorded/written in this voice.
I am surprised that there is not more controversy in the difference in the voices between Peter's first and second epistles. The vocabulary, tone, and content are very different. Was there an imposter that everyone has just lived with? If it wasn't the Word of God, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it is the Word of God, so it is a big deal.
There is an amazing resolution. Peter, one of Jesus' closest disciples, knows better than anyone about the life-changing redemption offered by Jesus. Even before the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, Peter was changed. In Acts 3, Peter is filled with the Holy Spirit and speaks differently (compare his speeches in Acts 2, his regular voice, and Acts 3). Peter experienced salvation -- the healing salve of the Great Physician. He changed. And it was reflected in his speaking.
(And so finally my point). So I believe that the Gospel of Matthew records the stories of Peter, but with the insights into how they fulfill the Law and the Prophets, as elucidated by the Holy Spirit. Matthew and Mark are based on the same testimony of Peter; but with the Holy Spirit filling in the gaps of what and why in Matthew.
Oh! And so both gospels were based on Peter speaking in whatever tongue he spoke in. Even if they got written down in Greek, they were based on a Middle Eastern tongue.
Hello Naomi, I have so many thoughts on this. What a great interview. I have never heard you so affected by a conversation. And as well you should be! The material is world-changing. That is not an overstatement at all!
First of all, I agree with you about the threat that Jesus as Messiah posed to the Powers That Be of both Judaism and the Roman State. The collaboration between Herod and Pontius Pilate at Jesus' passion was exactly right. The Jews needed Jesus to be crucified, and the Romans were happy to oblige.
To me, the lack of attention paid to the Old Testament by Christians is tragic. Yehovah is unchanging. He is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. What folly to think that, for example, if He is disgusted at the thought of eating seafood soup before Jesus came; why would He not still be disgusted by this thought? And if He set up the festivals to embody the story of His Messiah; why would followers of that messiah not want to understand the festivals and continue to celebrate them?
We miss out on so much richness. But that is part of being human, I guess. Yehovah's design is so much more than we can grasp.
I’m committed to finding and embracing the truest translation of the Bible. Your reading of the Geneva Bible has been wonderful!
The validity of the Dead Sea scrolls seems questionable to me. Why would we believe any narrative pushed on us by the government and the mainstream media in the last 100 years.
Very interesting conversation. I have not studied the Hebrew Matthew enough to comment intelligently on it, but I did meet an Orhothodox rabbi in Jerusalem that confided in me that their entire yeshiva was studying evidence about Yeshua from the Torah. He pointed to Mount of Olives and said "and he's coming back here". I looked at him in shock and said "do you really believe that? He replied "Yes". It's a much longer story but the bottom line is that it confirms to me there are many Jews in Israel that have discovered Yeshua in the Torah and believe. Another friend who lives in Israel confirmed that she heard something similar. I think the mystery of Romans 11 is that in some way there was a plan that the gospel go out to the nations and in the process it was disguised and it's culture changed so that it became somewhat unrecognizable to many Jews, much in the way Joseph was unrecognizable as an Egyptian to his brothers who had thrown him in a pit and sold him into slavery. Later on when Israel is about to die in Egypt and elevates Ephraim to the level of a son and gives him a double portion and declares he will become "the fulness of the nations" we have some hints about God's redemption plan. Ephraim, leader of the Northern Kingdom is exiled with many from the Northern Tribes and they never corporately return. Paul in Romans 11 says," I don't want you to be ignorant of this mystery but a hardening in part has come to Israel until the fulness of the nations comes in , thus all Israel will be saved. " In Hebrew fullness of the nations in Gen 48:19 is " melo hagoyim" in Hebrew in Greek "pleroo ethnos" Romans 11:25 mean the same thing, and furthermore they are the only 2 places in the entire Bible that use this expression. So my question, is in what sense did Ephraim, leader of the Northern Kingdom exiled into Assyrian exile a couple of hundred years before Judah or the Southern Kingdom went to Babylon, become the "fulness of the nations" ? The expression, House of Israel is often times an expression referring to the Northern Kingdom . Paul spent 4 years in Arabia before he started his ministry. What did he learn there?
He quotes in Romans 9 from both Isaiah and Hosea about the Northern Kingdom . God's redemption plan truly is mysterious, the way that he allowed the Scriptures and the Jewish Messiah to appear more Greek, blond hair and blue eyed for almost 2 thousand years and now as we come to the end of the age, his Hebrew origins are becoming more and more obvious. When all of the tribes of Israel "looks up him who they pierced and weeps like one weeps for an only begotten Son" all Israel will be saved and it will be life from the dead i.e. the Resurrection. All I can say is none what is going on is accidental. As of the Yom Kippur war, many many Jews have come to know their Jewish messiah Yeshua. I say we are nearing his return and many other signs point to this as well.
I realize that this like throwing a fire bomb in here, but the elephant in the room is the fact that if the Jews were to ever have received their Messiah and their prophesied kingdom it would have been in the first century! All of Jesus's prophecies of his second coming and later Paul's prophecies of it (like 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 KJV) were to have been fulfilled in that generation! The only "end time" prophecy that was fulfilled was the destruction of the temple and the city in 70 A.D. which I like to think that God allowed but did not orchestrate as it occurred during the mystery dispensation that began post-Acts when prophecy was canceled; but it was inevitable in that current political climate. When Paul let the leading Jewish rabbis "go" at Acts 28:28-31, he was actually serving them a writ of divorce on behalf of their former suitor, the Son of God, who, like Yahweh who had divorced Israel in the time of Hosea, as recorded in Jeremiah 3:8-11 KJV. If the fulness of the Gentiles (the prophesied Greeks) had "come in" (not us Gentiles saved according to the mystery not prophecy), and the nation of Judah had welcomed her Bridegroom, it would have fallen out to the good for the nation of Israel who would have been received again by the Lord in re-marriage (Romans 11:25-26 KJV).
After the Acts period ended in the failure of the nation of Judah to receive the fulfillment of their end time prophecies, the Apostle Paul never again reiterates those prophecies nor does he say they will yet be fulfilled in the future! To me, this means that God has washed his hands of his two ex-wives and has no plans to seek a reconciliation with Israel and Judah!
Colossians 3:11 KJV outlines how God views the world at present in this dispensation of the mystery (Ephesians 3:9 KJV): as INDIVIDUALS (not nations) all on the same level ground, either "in Christ" by faith or not "in Christ" at all. A very important clue that this is the case, and will continue to be the case without interruption right up to the return of Jesus Christ to this earth to establish a kingdom, is that there are two events that Paul presented in his letter to the Colossians (an epistle written according to the revelation of the mystery that replaced all prior prophecy and set to occur within the mystery dispensation): (1) the "appearing of Jesus Christ," Colossians 3:4 KJV; and (2) his receiving of his inheritance from his Father, the kingdom of God's "dear Son," (NOT Israel or Judah; Christ Jesus IS Israel and Judah as only he was obedient to his Father) into which ALL that belong to the Father and the Son by faith (I believe from the beginning of the world) are translated into it; and together with the saints, we shall be made of twain with them the "one new man" of Ephesians 2:15 KJV!
We have been caught in an enchantment by the idea that Israel and Judah will yet receive their promises. The erroneous "rapture theory," is partly to blame and it's a convenient proposal that some hope will rid the world of us Christians by those that want the earth for themselves. In truth, in the eyes of God, there is no "Israel," and there are no "Jews," only sinners in need of the Saviour he provided to the world (Colossians 3:11 again) in which anyone that desires eternal life can find it in him, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour (but not the Messiah)!
You are going to have to rip a lot of pages out of the Bible to convince me of your theory.
I personally don't believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. I believe in the resurrection.
Israel and Judah will receive their promises because God is faithful to his promises. If he is not we are all in deep deep trouble.
I would love to know what you do with verses like Ezekiel 37:15-28
Deuteronomy 30:1-6
Isaiah 49
Hosea 2:19-23 etc, etc just to name a few passages.
I don't know about you but my salvation was not based on my worthiness, intelligence or faithful but on God's great mercy to reveal himself to me in spirit and in truth. Since he is not a man that he should lie, I expect him to accomplish all that he promised for Israel, as well as the nations who are grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel in Yeshua the Messiah. I guess I will qualify my comments by saying, I don't read the Bible and think that the Tanach is no longer relavant because God himself is outside of time. He created time and therefore if you ignore those passages you do so at your own peril. Yes, God issued a writ of divorce to Israel for their spiritual adultery and then he came himself as their kinsman redeemer. He said himself, " I came for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. "
Amen. The 2 houses or sticks of Ezekiel 37 coming together. Genesis 48, gentile House of Joseph tribes and Genesis 49, Judah the royal line and Lawgiver. Isaiah 11, Hosea, etc., …
Yes and if only the nations understood God's redemption plan we would be so much better off, because the nations are grafted in too in Yeshua. His ways are not our ways.
It was the "Greeks" that were grafted into the olive tree of spiritual blessings in Romans 11. They were the subject of Old Testament prophecy, Deut. 32:21 – we are the subjects of the mystery, Eph 3:9 KJV, so those are two different things entirely.
The nations are grafted in, among the nations are Israel who was mixed with the nations in the Assyrian exile. The tribes of the Northern Kingdom became "the melo hagoyim" or the fullness of the nations. Jews are the Southern kingdom and perhaps some from the North who "crossed over" but by and large we don't know who they are because in the Assyrian exile, Northern Kingdom was scattered and mixed. They had already largely lost their identity in apostasy and when they were scattered Assyrians did it in such a way that they would not regroup. The only exception in the whole renewed covenant is Hannah/Anna from Asher. We do not see the tribal affiliations again until the book of Revelations because at the end of time they will be identified again.
I see no reason to believe that the end time prophecies from the Old Testament or even from the New that would result in Israel or Judah receiving their prophesied kingdom will yet be fulfilled. I say this because, first, Paul never makes any statement regarding the fulfillment of those promises in anything he penned after Acts ended. Second, the return (appearing) of Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:4; 1:13) will take place while the dispensation of the mystery (Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:25-26 KJV) is in operation; and, as you know, Paul made clear in Colossians 1:25 that it was given unto him to "fulfil the word of God," which indicates that he had the last word of God! A great change took place at the end of Acts and I see no indication in anything written thereafter that clearly says that the formerly chosen nations of Israel and Judah will receive their kingdom. God divorced them both in scripture; and I believe that he would have remarried Israel and married Judah IF the nation of Judah had acknowledged their Messiah (Romans 11:25-26 KJV); for whatever reason of his own, God would have made them both his happy household if Israel's sister Judah had paved the way. As it is, all of Israel and Judah have died off and they do not remain as an entity today; those calling themselves "Jews" or "Israel" are descended from Eastern European converts to the religion of Judaism which does not make them related in any physical way to the original nations of the Middle East.
Jer. 31:31 “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, 32 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. 33 For 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.
I know, right? But God is a gentleman that will never force his beloved to marry him against their will. Paul and his coworkers were "able ministers of the new testament," (same Greek word from which "covenant" is translated), and they consistently reached out to the chosen people in the Acts period but obviously a tipping point was never reached, because, do you see a kingdom around here with Jesus on the throne of his father, David? Matthew 16:28 was never fulfilled, and neither was 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, and there are a few more that did not come to pass. Revelation was to have come to pass "shortly," – NOT thousands of years later when the characters in it no longer exist.
Great video! As a Muslim, I have always had deep respect for Karaite Jews. The famous Islamic scholar Imam Abu Hanifa was once imprisoned by a tyrant and found himself sharing a prison cell with Anan Ben David, the leader of the Karaites in Baghdad. He saved Anan's life, got him released and his community classified as "People of the Book" so they would be protected by the Caliph under Islamic law.
Interesting tidbit -- the story of Joseph is central to Islam. There is an entire chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Joseph, where his life is called "the best of stories."
An amazing conversation. I’m anxious for the next one. :)
I typed in a comment earlier today, for which I did a bit of research to document what I said. I even edited my post after I initially entered it when I noticed a typo, so I know I didn’t accidentally forget to post it. It was quite involved, but it has now completely disappeared, without a trace. I wonder if others have had this happen. I could try to reconstruct it, but it took a long time to compose the first time and it is now almost midnight after a long day, so I won’t be doing it tonight.
Because ever since Paul wrote Ephesians and Colossians, and we are saved by accepting the free gift of God in Ephesians 2:8 & 9, and there are no signs or miracles or supernatural communication or gifts associated with that gift, I just don't see God micromanaging anything in our lives during this dispensation of the mystery revealed after Acts ended. And, if he did, then he would be to blame for those times when he doesn't do it, such as allowing innocent children to be harmed or the elderly to be homeless and suffering from malnutrition. It saves a lot of confusion if we just don't attribute things that happen by chance to him. I remember a mother at church saying that her son was protected in Iraq by painting a scripture from Deuteronomy on the side of his Humvee. I said, "And of course he did it to everyone else's, right?" Could've heard a pin drop! In everything give thanks but with an intelligent understanding, amen? Now the demon army of Satan is constantly working to deprive people of their opportunity to be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ!
It got worse. I had it typed in again and almost ready to post this morning when my screen froze. Usually when that particular thing happens to me, the screen eventually catches up and is okay, but then everything disappeared. That was my first thought… maybe haShem wants it not said. And then I thought … maybe it is the Adversary/Enemy that doesn’t want the truth to be told. That’s always the question, isn’t it?
I just wrote it out again, in more detail and more fully, and posted it. Maybe that’s what G-d wanted. I wrote it in my phone “notes” so it was less likely to disappear, and I now have a copy for future reference if needed. :) From reading your comment above, I think you’ll find it interesting. :)
Not so easy. To print something, I have to e-mail it to myself, go to the library with my laptop and copy and paste it onto a thumb drive, come home, start generator, transfer file from thumb drive to computer, and print. I don't go to the library very often. Limited hours and always during prime day time/work time.
Not so easy. To print something, I have to e-mail it to myself, go to the library with my laptop and copy and paste it onto a thumb drive, come home, start generator, transfer file from thumb drive to computer, and print. I don’t go to the library very often. Limited hours and always during prime day time/work time.
Also Yitzak Yadin mentions that a copy of Matthew in Hebrew was part of the dead sea scrolls. The members of the dead sea committee belonging to the catholic church conveniently misplaced it.
No way! That is mind boggling; does this imply that Matthew was considered on the level of Holy Scripture? And by extension, was Yeshua under serious consideration as the Messiah?
I have heard for many years that the evidence of Matthias (Matthew) being written in Hebrew is pretty strong. What Naomi says may be some of the reason this has been supposed to be the case.
He's accessed Shem Tov' Hebrew Mathew, but no one has had access to the one found in Qumran since it's discovery in the very early 50's. It counterdicts the teaching of Paul with such significance that it threatens the Christian religion. Well, at least from the miniscule number of references to it, that is what is believed.
I love you guys. Nehemiah has made so many verses so much clearer with proper translation. Today we were discussing Yeshua who says all law and prophets are based on two commands. Love your God with all heart and mind, spirit and strength and neighbor as yourself. "If you love me keep my commandments." Obviously the Torah is central to everything. - Cheers-
Here's something: Iesous nazoraious. What would that mean, exactly? A proper name with two elements. I've heard that it was a characteristically Greek stance that if you have a name with two terms, the second indicates city of origin. Archimedes of Syracuse. But nazoraious isn't a Greek word, having been transliterated into Greek and then having a Greek grammatical suffix added on. It looks like masculine, nominative, singular: the nazarene. The nazor-person. A Hellenistic person might unconsciously jump to the meaning: person from Nazor, Nazora, Nazareth. But I'm wondering if that's really true. What could the Aramaic root, nazor alternatively indicate? Could it mean "the holy one?"
Nearly all Hebrew words, including names, tend to have multiple meanings. This name is transliterated from Hebrew, so that Greek-speaking Jews who knew their Tanach would recognize its significance.
Iesous = Yeshua, "salvation" (masculine form), also the name of the priest who partnered with Zerubbabel in bringing the exiles back from Babylon (in English "Jeshua," Ezra 2:2).
Nazoraious = Ha-notzri, the Branch from the line of David (the word is netzer in Isa. 11:1), i.e. the Messiah. Also "the one from Natzrat" (Nazareth) - a word-play on Yeshua's hometown that Matthew (2:23) connects back to this prophecy. Also a verb - notzer - which means to "preserve / guard" (one of the 13 Attributes of GOD revealed to Moses = Notzer Chesed). So "notzri" would be "the one who preserves me".
Thank you for this interesting perspective. No doubt reading the Bible in Hebrew is a huge advantage; that's one reason I'm following this series of readings.
Greek speaking Jews who knew their Tanakh might recognize the significance of this word, but I'm wondering whether Greek speaking early Christians who hadn't started from a Jewish position would. They might be inclined to misinterpret it as a geographic reference, since that would be in accord with their cultural norms. I'm also wondering if the Greek form really is an amalgam of two Hebrew words; it might represent just one, in which case one wonders which one. The idea of Branch of David/Messiah/the one who preserves would seem to be the stronger statement, as opposed to a relatively insignificant geographical reference -- insignificant to us, but not necessarily to a Hellenist.
There are of course numerous references to Nazareth in relation to Yeshua, and Mary, scattered across the gospels, and also Acts. On the surface it seems almost an open and shut case.: Jesus of/from Nazareth. But it bothers me. I'm thinking it's not impossible that a later editor, or editorial board, working in the second century, comprised of persons of Hellenistic background, might not have recognized the loaded nature of the original Hebrew word, and responded to a sense more in accord with their own brand of significance (geography, in its characteristic political sense). Editors are usually after concision, accuracy, and consistency, so the appearance of these numerous Nazareth statements might be an editorial addition, done for the sake of accuracy (from their perspective) combined with consistency, and possibly also emphasis.
Yes, you are right about early Christians without a Jewish background, who may have 'helped by simplifying' a good many things in Scripture based on their own perceptions. I don't necessarily think they edited the apostles' letters, but the way they taught the NT diverged from the Jewish Christians (who were eventually pushed out of the church altogether).
I should also mention that the Jewish way of reading of the Scriptures for centuries was different from Greek exegesis. Instead of aiming at consistency and precision (i.e. the 'best' interpretation wins, and the others are discarded), a given phrase in Hebrew was allowed to say more than one thing simultaneously, and all of the results were considered valid words of GOD. Not only was that not considered a problem, it was upheld as proof that the Bible is a supernatural book.
And to make things even more fluid, there were no vowels or punctuation marks in the Hebrew Tanach until around 800 AD when the "Masoretic Text" was created... ironically, by the Karaites... and became the standard text for the rabbinic community. But even then, the purpose was to unify public reading, not to lock down the meaning of the original Hebrew.
Rabbinic teachers later became more rigid about sticking to the MT, I assume out of a need to control the results. :) But some inconvenient readings still leak through, which are skated over by English-speaking rabbis. They tend to run away from me once they realize I want to discuss the MT Hebrew.
I don't know why the first thing most Christian evangelists do after leading someone to faith is to tell them that the law is done away with. That is ridiculous. The law of sin and death is done away with. I do not think Paul was telling Christians to disregard YHWH's Loving Instruction. Yeshua's Feasts & Sabbaths are for the whole house of Israel. He came to restore us to the Father and to each other.
Dr. Nehemiah is always an enlightening listen.
As the Apostle Matthew was also called Levi it is possible he was a Levite and therefore the most likely too have the education to write a Gospel in Hebrew.
One of the possible confirmations of this is that the way he structued the Sermon on the Mount (differently from the similar Sermon on the Plain) is based on the layout and celebrations of the Temple.
For a breakdown of how i recommend this book published by the Society of Old Testament Studies.
https://www.amazon.com/Sermon-Mount-Light-Temple/dp/1138264784
I look forward to meeting Dr Gordon at the feet of Jesus in the Kingdom! It’s obvious to me that that is where he is headed with his study. ❤️
I spoke to Nehemia Gordon in about 1997. (Sorry, I don't address anyone as "Dr." who is in the religious or philosophical profession.) Nehemia was touring the U.S. with Michael Rude, the leader of a Messianic cultlike organization called A Rude Awakening, headquartered in Israel. I was very much familiar with the organization Micheal previously belonged to. Michael had a TV show in which he was dressed in Jewish priestly garb. Over the years Michael's prophetic statements continually failed to come to pass. There were also financial scandals. His organization still produces a TV show. There were about 1,200 people in attendance at the event in Kansas City in 1997. I specifically attended in order to talk to Nehemia Gordon. I was most interested and excited about his discovery of a Hebrew gospel of Matthew. I had written a paper over the previous year on the reason Matthew wrote his gospel. His gospel is similar to Mark and Luke yet all three have differences. I met Nehemia, his wife and some of his children. They all seemed to be good people. I liked them. The gist of my paper was that I found the answer why Matthew divided his gospel into sections which all scholars are aware of, but they don't know what the purpose is. Nehemia's response was, "Why should I care?" His answer astounded me. Nehemia spent countless hours translating and studying the Hebrew Matthew, yet he wasn't interested in why Matthew arranged his gospel as he did. It was a sort of cop out, similar to the way Nehemia evaded certain questions Naomi broached. What I was so excited about was that I discovered Matthew arranged the events and teachings of Jesus (or Yeshua) in sections which exactly corresponded to the readings of the Hebrew Bible which were read on the seven Biblical Festivals. For example, on Shavuot (Pentecost), the Jews celebrate the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. They read the lengthy Ps. 119 which is all about the Law. The first part of Matthew's gospel is about Jesus' birth and coming back out of Egypt when Herod died. It was the time of the Passover. Israel marched to Mt. Sinai and received the Law on the mountain. The first of five distinct sections of Matthew's gospel is the "second giving of the Law". Jesus is on a mountain. His first words are the eight beatitudes beginning with "Blessed are the poor in spirit" just as Ps 119 begins with an eight-verse stanza with "Blessed are they whose way is blameless". Matthew, after giving the eight beatitudes goes on to have Jesus give a dissertation on each beatitude, beginning in typical Jewish manner with the last beatitude and working towards the first beatitude. Ps. 119 is read as part of the Jewish liturgy which is read on Shavuot.
The same is true regarding the next four sections in Matthew. He arranged his material to relate to the liturgy read on each of the following Biblical festivals of Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Succot. Finally, it's a full year and Passover again arrives. Matthew ends his gospel with the Passover death of Jesus, well not exactly ends it. He has Jesus telling his disciples to make disciples throughout the world and instructing them to obey what Jesus commanded. Jesus' ministry only lasted one year. (Back to Michael Rude: He was correct to teach that Jesus' ministry only lasted one year, but his "proofs" were all erroneous, as was the year of Jesus' ministry.)
Naomi is right. The 1st century Christians were ungovernable, either by the Jewish authorities or the Roman government. Maybe that's why tyrannies hate Christians and Jews.
Where can one see your paper?
I sent you a message on your profile saying I will be happy to send you a copy of the paper if you send me your email address.
wow amazing insight
One of my favorite books is The Separation of Church and Faith: Copernicus and the Jews by Daniel Gruber (2005). It is along the lines of the topic in this interview. I would like to say that my respect and admiration for Dan is not solely through reading his books. I attended Torah studies that he taught for about 15 years (~2001-2017), learning from him nearly every week during those years. My appreciation for his wisdom only increased during that time.
The book is dedicated to “those who died in the night.” It is organized into two sections: “Finding the Center” and “Rebuilding the Highway.”
Chapter one sets the stage - what it is about Copernicus that gave the book its subtitle. Astronomy and epicycles. Deferents and eccentrics. Planets, the sun, and the earth.
Chapter two - “Parlez-vous Jewish Greek? The ‘New Testament’ is a Jewish Greek Document Written in Jewish Greek” - explains the language of the “new testament,” its origin, and how to determine word usages and meanings. The Septuagint (translation of Tanach into Greek) is vitally important in this process.
Chapter three - “Dr. Frankenstein’s Neighborhood Bible Club: The Bible Does Not Contain a New Testament or an Old Testament” takes on the mistranslation of the Greek word “diatheke,” which is from the Hebrew word “brit.” When translated into Latin, an error was made, which was then perpetuated in English, as well as many (most/all?) other languages. There is no word in the Bible anywhere that can accurately be translated as “testament.” There are no wills or “testaments” anywhere in the Bible and to label sections of the Bible with this designation is inaccurate, misleading, and detrimental.
Chapter four - “A Good Church is Hard to Find: There is No Church in the Bible” - discusses the mistranslations of the Greek words “ekklesia” and “sunagoge.” The original Hebrew words are “kahal” and “edah.” Sometimes the translators of the Messianic Writings appear to intentionally mistranslate these words to validate their theology or maybe their theology blinded them to what the actual text says. An eye-opening explanation.
Chapter five - “Office Directory: Transliteration Creates the Illusion of Christian Religious Offices” is an exploration of why translators might choose to transliterate instead of translating words, how that may be necessary or beneficial in some instances and how it can be misleading and inappropriate - even deceptive - in others.
Chapter six - “The People Came to Him: The Jews Responded Positively to Yeshua” goes into detail about how the Jewish people flocked to hear Yeshua speak and how they admired and loved him. Every verse that shows the people’s response to Yeshua in the four accounts of Yeshua’s life is quoted as evidence, in case there is any doubt.
Chapter seven - “Theopolitical Rulers: The Rulers Had Him Killed” - shows how differently the majority of the political and religious leaders reacted to Yeshua, compared to the people that followed Him and crowded around to hear him.
Chapter eight is entitled “John’s ιουδαιοι: Bad Translation Distorts Reality.” This chapter explains how one word can have a variety of meanings and the importance of translating it in its context. An example given is the various meanings of “Yankee.”
Chapter nine is called “Das Herrenvolk und Des Herrn Volk: In the Bible ‘The People of God’ Are The Jews.” This should go without saying, but due to replacement theology, it is necessary to say and show this basic fact.
Chapter ten - “A Little Case of Mistaken Identity: There Are No Christians in the Bible” - deals with another translation issue. Do words matter? Can’t we just use a word however we want to use it, with our own definition of it? There’s a bit about Romeo and Juliet and roses. Some about how the confusion came about. Who gets to determine the meanings of words? Is it helpful, useful, or accurate to use an incorrect word with thousands of years of baggage?
Chapter eleven is “What Are You Doing on Sunday? Sunday is Neither the Lord’s Day nor a New Sabbath.” That pretty much tells the story, but the explanation is worth reading. :)
Chapter twelve is “Those Pearly Gates: The Followers of Yeshua Will Rule Upon the Earth.” This chapter begins with a lengthy quote from Golda Meir. The sections in this chapter cover:
1. Confusion about where Yeshua will reign
2. The improper identification of the new Jerusalem as heaven
3. The church cutting itself off from Israel’s olive tree
4. A neo-platonic understanding of the relationship of the physical and the spiritual realms
Chapter thirteen: “A Dispatch From the Front: The Good News is that the Kingdom of God is Coming to this Planet.”
1. The good news is a call to turn to the God of Israel and serve Him.
2. The good news is the means of fulfilling God’s oath to Abraham to make him a great nation.
3. The good news is the means of fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham to make him the context of blessing for all nations.
4. Israel is God’s first-born son.
5. Israel is God’s portion.
6. The good news is the means of fulfilling God’s promises to Israel.
7. The center of the good news is “Messiah, i.e. the King of the Jews, crucified.”
8. The good news is the good news of the kingdom, and the coming Kingdom of God is the restored Davidic kingdom.
9. Israel is God’s means for bringing the good news to all the earth.
10. The good news is fulfilled through God’s New Covenant relationship with the Jewish people.
11. Salvation is from the Jews.
12. God does not show favoritism.
Chapter fourteen completes the first section with “A Tale of Two Bumblebees: God Never Established Any Religion.” A must-read is the story of the two bumblebees, but my favorite quote from the whole book, which I quote often is from this chapter (page 186):
“It was the best of religions; it was the worst of religions. It brought life, love, and compassion to a dark and cruel world. It also brought torture, repression, ignorance, slavery, and death to an innocent world. It burned with Light and Truth. It also burned the Bible and those who believed it.
“Those who adhered to it built universities, hospitals, and orphanages. They also justified poverty, exploitation, war, and conquest. They brought food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, work to the destitute, and hope to the hopeless. They filled the earth with contempt for man, contempt for God's creation, and contempt for God.
“What is this thing called ‘Christianity’? The Bible does not tell us. The Bible talks about something else.”
I’ve gotten you halfway through the book. For “Rebuilding the Highway,” I encourage you to get a copy.
I highly recommend reading this whole book. It is excellent for anyone who cares about the Bible, the God of Israel, Yeshua, Truth, etc.
There are also audio teachings of each chapter of the book available at Dan’s website, elijahnet.net, in the lower right corner.
I liked your comment and I'm ordering the book. However, I totally disagree with you on Chapter 11's title and your comment: “'What Are You Doing on Sunday? Sunday is Neither the Lord’s Day nor a New Sabbath.' That pretty much tells the story, but the explanation is worth reading. :)"
It's very simple, just read carefully the NT. In all usages of the terms "God" and "Lord", with only one or two exceptions, "God" always refers to Yahweh, the one and only God of the OT, whereas "Lord" always refers to Yeshua or Jesus, whatever you wish to call him. Now go to Paul's letter to the Romans, chp. 14. Paul is addressing the question of whether it's okay to be a vegetarian or not. Paul basically says don't condemn the other side, but each side should do what they think is right. He says their master, the "Lord", is able to make him stand. The "Lord" is Jesus. Then Paul uses the example of those who consider one day as more sacred or special than another day. He says each person should be fully convinced in his own mind. He says the one side who regards one day as special, "does so to the Lord" (NIV). On the other hand, Paul says those who do not regard one day as more special are equally doing what is okay. Scholars are perplexed as to what Paul is talking about. Most scholars are convinced Paul is not talking about the Sabbath, as he would never talk that way about the Sabbath. I think the answer is obvious. If the people were regarding a day of the week as more special than the other days of the week and are doing so "unto the Lord" i.e. Jesus, it would be Sunday that Paul was referring to. Jesus was raised from the dead by God on a Sunday morning. It was only natural that many early Christians would consider that day as special. Paul was saying if you want to observe Sunday as special, that's fine. If you did not want to observe Sunday, that's equally fine. The Sabbath is not the subject being addressed. Paul and the early Church always observed the Sabbath.
By the way, I have observed the Sabbath for over sixty years. I choose not to consider Sunday as more special than any other day of the week. Occasionally I will visit a Sunday keeping church and fellowship with the people there. I will also visit synagogues now and then and fellowship there. There are some wonderful people in both, and we should not be so condemning.
Don’t mean to nitpick, but Yeshua was raised from the grave Saturday evening after sundown/beginning of the next day Sunday, completing three days and three nights—- Wednesday sundown to Saturday sundown.
Yes, Yeshua appeared to Miriam of Magdala Sunday morning.
Thank you, Joseph. You are not nitpicking. It is a very important issue, since everything about Jesus' ministry is important. For over thirty years I believed just as you do, except I believed Jesus was raised late Sabbath afternoon. Of course, I don't believe it now. We could have a great discussion on it. What I would urge is study, study, study, and not pay attention to the opinions of others, including mine. At the same time pray seriously for understanding of what is the truth, not that God would help you see one side or another. My best wishes to you.
I would like to share some test-based literary criticism of the four gospels of Jesus. It's a long story, sorry!
The Bible, Tanakh and New Testament alike, was utilized orally, up until fairly recently (last 500 years). We in the 20th/21st century don't experience it this way, though, generally. A dozen years ago I heard the Bible (Genesis, actually) read long-from on the radio and was absolutely blown away by it. The story of Isaac and Rachel came absolutely alive. I was driving from Fairfield to Sacramento, California, for dinner. I know exactly where and when I was. It was life-altering.
I acquired Alexander Scourby's reading of the King James Bible, an amazing reading of it. When hearing it, the source of the gospels became very clear (in my perception). There is a clarion voice in it. The gospel of Mark comes from (again, in my perception) Peter telling stories. It explains the random order. Even in English, you hear the blunt language of a rural fisherman. I was stunned and listened to much of the New Testament to hear more. And sure enough; his voice is also very clear in the Gospel of Matthew; in much of the Gospel of John (longer story there); less so in the Gospel of Luke; in Peter's second epistle; and the Book of Hebrews.
So, if I had any interest in going to seminary, here would be my thesis: there is no written Book of Q. The Gospel of Matthew was not derived from the Gospel of Mark. Both of those gospels came from the same source: the spoken record of the eyewitness Peter.
There is a Part 2, though. Not all of the writings attributed to Peter sound like this voice that I have identified as Peter's. The quotations of Peter in the Book of Acts sound completely different. It is like a biblical scholar grabbed Peter's name and wrote something theological. Even Peter's first epistle is recorded/written in this voice.
I am surprised that there is not more controversy in the difference in the voices between Peter's first and second epistles. The vocabulary, tone, and content are very different. Was there an imposter that everyone has just lived with? If it wasn't the Word of God, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it is the Word of God, so it is a big deal.
There is an amazing resolution. Peter, one of Jesus' closest disciples, knows better than anyone about the life-changing redemption offered by Jesus. Even before the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, Peter was changed. In Acts 3, Peter is filled with the Holy Spirit and speaks differently (compare his speeches in Acts 2, his regular voice, and Acts 3). Peter experienced salvation -- the healing salve of the Great Physician. He changed. And it was reflected in his speaking.
(And so finally my point). So I believe that the Gospel of Matthew records the stories of Peter, but with the insights into how they fulfill the Law and the Prophets, as elucidated by the Holy Spirit. Matthew and Mark are based on the same testimony of Peter; but with the Holy Spirit filling in the gaps of what and why in Matthew.
Oh! And so both gospels were based on Peter speaking in whatever tongue he spoke in. Even if they got written down in Greek, they were based on a Middle Eastern tongue.
Hello Naomi, I have so many thoughts on this. What a great interview. I have never heard you so affected by a conversation. And as well you should be! The material is world-changing. That is not an overstatement at all!
First of all, I agree with you about the threat that Jesus as Messiah posed to the Powers That Be of both Judaism and the Roman State. The collaboration between Herod and Pontius Pilate at Jesus' passion was exactly right. The Jews needed Jesus to be crucified, and the Romans were happy to oblige.
To me, the lack of attention paid to the Old Testament by Christians is tragic. Yehovah is unchanging. He is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. What folly to think that, for example, if He is disgusted at the thought of eating seafood soup before Jesus came; why would He not still be disgusted by this thought? And if He set up the festivals to embody the story of His Messiah; why would followers of that messiah not want to understand the festivals and continue to celebrate them?
We miss out on so much richness. But that is part of being human, I guess. Yehovah's design is so much more than we can grasp.
I’m committed to finding and embracing the truest translation of the Bible. Your reading of the Geneva Bible has been wonderful!
The validity of the Dead Sea scrolls seems questionable to me. Why would we believe any narrative pushed on us by the government and the mainstream media in the last 100 years.
agree to an encore
Very interesting conversation. I have not studied the Hebrew Matthew enough to comment intelligently on it, but I did meet an Orhothodox rabbi in Jerusalem that confided in me that their entire yeshiva was studying evidence about Yeshua from the Torah. He pointed to Mount of Olives and said "and he's coming back here". I looked at him in shock and said "do you really believe that? He replied "Yes". It's a much longer story but the bottom line is that it confirms to me there are many Jews in Israel that have discovered Yeshua in the Torah and believe. Another friend who lives in Israel confirmed that she heard something similar. I think the mystery of Romans 11 is that in some way there was a plan that the gospel go out to the nations and in the process it was disguised and it's culture changed so that it became somewhat unrecognizable to many Jews, much in the way Joseph was unrecognizable as an Egyptian to his brothers who had thrown him in a pit and sold him into slavery. Later on when Israel is about to die in Egypt and elevates Ephraim to the level of a son and gives him a double portion and declares he will become "the fulness of the nations" we have some hints about God's redemption plan. Ephraim, leader of the Northern Kingdom is exiled with many from the Northern Tribes and they never corporately return. Paul in Romans 11 says," I don't want you to be ignorant of this mystery but a hardening in part has come to Israel until the fulness of the nations comes in , thus all Israel will be saved. " In Hebrew fullness of the nations in Gen 48:19 is " melo hagoyim" in Hebrew in Greek "pleroo ethnos" Romans 11:25 mean the same thing, and furthermore they are the only 2 places in the entire Bible that use this expression. So my question, is in what sense did Ephraim, leader of the Northern Kingdom exiled into Assyrian exile a couple of hundred years before Judah or the Southern Kingdom went to Babylon, become the "fulness of the nations" ? The expression, House of Israel is often times an expression referring to the Northern Kingdom . Paul spent 4 years in Arabia before he started his ministry. What did he learn there?
He quotes in Romans 9 from both Isaiah and Hosea about the Northern Kingdom . God's redemption plan truly is mysterious, the way that he allowed the Scriptures and the Jewish Messiah to appear more Greek, blond hair and blue eyed for almost 2 thousand years and now as we come to the end of the age, his Hebrew origins are becoming more and more obvious. When all of the tribes of Israel "looks up him who they pierced and weeps like one weeps for an only begotten Son" all Israel will be saved and it will be life from the dead i.e. the Resurrection. All I can say is none what is going on is accidental. As of the Yom Kippur war, many many Jews have come to know their Jewish messiah Yeshua. I say we are nearing his return and many other signs point to this as well.
I realize that this like throwing a fire bomb in here, but the elephant in the room is the fact that if the Jews were to ever have received their Messiah and their prophesied kingdom it would have been in the first century! All of Jesus's prophecies of his second coming and later Paul's prophecies of it (like 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 KJV) were to have been fulfilled in that generation! The only "end time" prophecy that was fulfilled was the destruction of the temple and the city in 70 A.D. which I like to think that God allowed but did not orchestrate as it occurred during the mystery dispensation that began post-Acts when prophecy was canceled; but it was inevitable in that current political climate. When Paul let the leading Jewish rabbis "go" at Acts 28:28-31, he was actually serving them a writ of divorce on behalf of their former suitor, the Son of God, who, like Yahweh who had divorced Israel in the time of Hosea, as recorded in Jeremiah 3:8-11 KJV. If the fulness of the Gentiles (the prophesied Greeks) had "come in" (not us Gentiles saved according to the mystery not prophecy), and the nation of Judah had welcomed her Bridegroom, it would have fallen out to the good for the nation of Israel who would have been received again by the Lord in re-marriage (Romans 11:25-26 KJV).
After the Acts period ended in the failure of the nation of Judah to receive the fulfillment of their end time prophecies, the Apostle Paul never again reiterates those prophecies nor does he say they will yet be fulfilled in the future! To me, this means that God has washed his hands of his two ex-wives and has no plans to seek a reconciliation with Israel and Judah!
Colossians 3:11 KJV outlines how God views the world at present in this dispensation of the mystery (Ephesians 3:9 KJV): as INDIVIDUALS (not nations) all on the same level ground, either "in Christ" by faith or not "in Christ" at all. A very important clue that this is the case, and will continue to be the case without interruption right up to the return of Jesus Christ to this earth to establish a kingdom, is that there are two events that Paul presented in his letter to the Colossians (an epistle written according to the revelation of the mystery that replaced all prior prophecy and set to occur within the mystery dispensation): (1) the "appearing of Jesus Christ," Colossians 3:4 KJV; and (2) his receiving of his inheritance from his Father, the kingdom of God's "dear Son," (NOT Israel or Judah; Christ Jesus IS Israel and Judah as only he was obedient to his Father) into which ALL that belong to the Father and the Son by faith (I believe from the beginning of the world) are translated into it; and together with the saints, we shall be made of twain with them the "one new man" of Ephesians 2:15 KJV!
We have been caught in an enchantment by the idea that Israel and Judah will yet receive their promises. The erroneous "rapture theory," is partly to blame and it's a convenient proposal that some hope will rid the world of us Christians by those that want the earth for themselves. In truth, in the eyes of God, there is no "Israel," and there are no "Jews," only sinners in need of the Saviour he provided to the world (Colossians 3:11 again) in which anyone that desires eternal life can find it in him, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour (but not the Messiah)!
Deborah,
You are going to have to rip a lot of pages out of the Bible to convince me of your theory.
I personally don't believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. I believe in the resurrection.
Israel and Judah will receive their promises because God is faithful to his promises. If he is not we are all in deep deep trouble.
I would love to know what you do with verses like Ezekiel 37:15-28
Deuteronomy 30:1-6
Isaiah 49
Hosea 2:19-23 etc, etc just to name a few passages.
I don't know about you but my salvation was not based on my worthiness, intelligence or faithful but on God's great mercy to reveal himself to me in spirit and in truth. Since he is not a man that he should lie, I expect him to accomplish all that he promised for Israel, as well as the nations who are grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel in Yeshua the Messiah. I guess I will qualify my comments by saying, I don't read the Bible and think that the Tanach is no longer relavant because God himself is outside of time. He created time and therefore if you ignore those passages you do so at your own peril. Yes, God issued a writ of divorce to Israel for their spiritual adultery and then he came himself as their kinsman redeemer. He said himself, " I came for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. "
Amen. The 2 houses or sticks of Ezekiel 37 coming together. Genesis 48, gentile House of Joseph tribes and Genesis 49, Judah the royal line and Lawgiver. Isaiah 11, Hosea, etc., …
Yes and if only the nations understood God's redemption plan we would be so much better off, because the nations are grafted in too in Yeshua. His ways are not our ways.
It was the "Greeks" that were grafted into the olive tree of spiritual blessings in Romans 11. They were the subject of Old Testament prophecy, Deut. 32:21 – we are the subjects of the mystery, Eph 3:9 KJV, so those are two different things entirely.
The nations are grafted in, among the nations are Israel who was mixed with the nations in the Assyrian exile. The tribes of the Northern Kingdom became "the melo hagoyim" or the fullness of the nations. Jews are the Southern kingdom and perhaps some from the North who "crossed over" but by and large we don't know who they are because in the Assyrian exile, Northern Kingdom was scattered and mixed. They had already largely lost their identity in apostasy and when they were scattered Assyrians did it in such a way that they would not regroup. The only exception in the whole renewed covenant is Hannah/Anna from Asher. We do not see the tribal affiliations again until the book of Revelations because at the end of time they will be identified again.
I see no reason to believe that the end time prophecies from the Old Testament or even from the New that would result in Israel or Judah receiving their prophesied kingdom will yet be fulfilled. I say this because, first, Paul never makes any statement regarding the fulfillment of those promises in anything he penned after Acts ended. Second, the return (appearing) of Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:4; 1:13) will take place while the dispensation of the mystery (Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:25-26 KJV) is in operation; and, as you know, Paul made clear in Colossians 1:25 that it was given unto him to "fulfil the word of God," which indicates that he had the last word of God! A great change took place at the end of Acts and I see no indication in anything written thereafter that clearly says that the formerly chosen nations of Israel and Judah will receive their kingdom. God divorced them both in scripture; and I believe that he would have remarried Israel and married Judah IF the nation of Judah had acknowledged their Messiah (Romans 11:25-26 KJV); for whatever reason of his own, God would have made them both his happy household if Israel's sister Judah had paved the way. As it is, all of Israel and Judah have died off and they do not remain as an entity today; those calling themselves "Jews" or "Israel" are descended from Eastern European converts to the religion of Judaism which does not make them related in any physical way to the original nations of the Middle East.
Jer. 31:31 “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, 32 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. 33 For 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.
I know, right? But God is a gentleman that will never force his beloved to marry him against their will. Paul and his coworkers were "able ministers of the new testament," (same Greek word from which "covenant" is translated), and they consistently reached out to the chosen people in the Acts period but obviously a tipping point was never reached, because, do you see a kingdom around here with Jesus on the throne of his father, David? Matthew 16:28 was never fulfilled, and neither was 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, and there are a few more that did not come to pass. Revelation was to have come to pass "shortly," – NOT thousands of years later when the characters in it no longer exist.
Great video! As a Muslim, I have always had deep respect for Karaite Jews. The famous Islamic scholar Imam Abu Hanifa was once imprisoned by a tyrant and found himself sharing a prison cell with Anan Ben David, the leader of the Karaites in Baghdad. He saved Anan's life, got him released and his community classified as "People of the Book" so they would be protected by the Caliph under Islamic law.
wow!
What a story! It is reminiscent of Joseph while imprisoned in Egypt. I am interested to learn more about such a wise Imam.
Interesting tidbit -- the story of Joseph is central to Islam. There is an entire chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Joseph, where his life is called "the best of stories."
An amazing conversation. I’m anxious for the next one. :)
I typed in a comment earlier today, for which I did a bit of research to document what I said. I even edited my post after I initially entered it when I noticed a typo, so I know I didn’t accidentally forget to post it. It was quite involved, but it has now completely disappeared, without a trace. I wonder if others have had this happen. I could try to reconstruct it, but it took a long time to compose the first time and it is now almost midnight after a long day, so I won’t be doing it tonight.
That has happened to me on YouTube more times than I'd like to remember! Sometimes I wonder if the devil is in those details!
Yes…. I did rewrite it more thoroughly and posted it this morning. Probably a couple hours of time invested…
So frustrating! When that happens, I have learned to trust that YHWH was preventing it for His reasons.
Because ever since Paul wrote Ephesians and Colossians, and we are saved by accepting the free gift of God in Ephesians 2:8 & 9, and there are no signs or miracles or supernatural communication or gifts associated with that gift, I just don't see God micromanaging anything in our lives during this dispensation of the mystery revealed after Acts ended. And, if he did, then he would be to blame for those times when he doesn't do it, such as allowing innocent children to be harmed or the elderly to be homeless and suffering from malnutrition. It saves a lot of confusion if we just don't attribute things that happen by chance to him. I remember a mother at church saying that her son was protected in Iraq by painting a scripture from Deuteronomy on the side of his Humvee. I said, "And of course he did it to everyone else's, right?" Could've heard a pin drop! In everything give thanks but with an intelligent understanding, amen? Now the demon army of Satan is constantly working to deprive people of their opportunity to be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ!
It got worse. I had it typed in again and almost ready to post this morning when my screen froze. Usually when that particular thing happens to me, the screen eventually catches up and is okay, but then everything disappeared. That was my first thought… maybe haShem wants it not said. And then I thought … maybe it is the Adversary/Enemy that doesn’t want the truth to be told. That’s always the question, isn’t it?
Yes, yes it is.
What was the gist of what you were trying to say?
I just wrote it out again, in more detail and more fully, and posted it. Maybe that’s what G-d wanted. I wrote it in my phone “notes” so it was less likely to disappear, and I now have a copy for future reference if needed. :) From reading your comment above, I think you’ll find it interesting. :)
Print it out
Not so easy. To print something, I have to e-mail it to myself, go to the library with my laptop and copy and paste it onto a thumb drive, come home, start generator, transfer file from thumb drive to computer, and print. I don't go to the library very often. Limited hours and always during prime day time/work time.
Not so easy. To print something, I have to e-mail it to myself, go to the library with my laptop and copy and paste it onto a thumb drive, come home, start generator, transfer file from thumb drive to computer, and print. I don’t go to the library very often. Limited hours and always during prime day time/work time.
Also Yitzak Yadin mentions that a copy of Matthew in Hebrew was part of the dead sea scrolls. The members of the dead sea committee belonging to the catholic church conveniently misplaced it.
No way! That is mind boggling; does this imply that Matthew was considered on the level of Holy Scripture? And by extension, was Yeshua under serious consideration as the Messiah?
I have heard for many years that the evidence of Matthias (Matthew) being written in Hebrew is pretty strong. What Naomi says may be some of the reason this has been supposed to be the case.
I don't know. I wish someone like Nehemiah could get hold of that text though.
I thought that he did.
He's accessed Shem Tov' Hebrew Mathew, but no one has had access to the one found in Qumran since it's discovery in the very early 50's. It counterdicts the teaching of Paul with such significance that it threatens the Christian religion. Well, at least from the miniscule number of references to it, that is what is believed.
I love you guys. Nehemiah has made so many verses so much clearer with proper translation. Today we were discussing Yeshua who says all law and prophets are based on two commands. Love your God with all heart and mind, spirit and strength and neighbor as yourself. "If you love me keep my commandments." Obviously the Torah is central to everything. - Cheers-
St. John Chrysostom. 347-407. "Golden-mouth."
More like trash mouth.
He is the epitome of Anti-Semitism.
Here's something: Iesous nazoraious. What would that mean, exactly? A proper name with two elements. I've heard that it was a characteristically Greek stance that if you have a name with two terms, the second indicates city of origin. Archimedes of Syracuse. But nazoraious isn't a Greek word, having been transliterated into Greek and then having a Greek grammatical suffix added on. It looks like masculine, nominative, singular: the nazarene. The nazor-person. A Hellenistic person might unconsciously jump to the meaning: person from Nazor, Nazora, Nazareth. But I'm wondering if that's really true. What could the Aramaic root, nazor alternatively indicate? Could it mean "the holy one?"
Nearly all Hebrew words, including names, tend to have multiple meanings. This name is transliterated from Hebrew, so that Greek-speaking Jews who knew their Tanach would recognize its significance.
Iesous = Yeshua, "salvation" (masculine form), also the name of the priest who partnered with Zerubbabel in bringing the exiles back from Babylon (in English "Jeshua," Ezra 2:2).
Nazoraious = Ha-notzri, the Branch from the line of David (the word is netzer in Isa. 11:1), i.e. the Messiah. Also "the one from Natzrat" (Nazareth) - a word-play on Yeshua's hometown that Matthew (2:23) connects back to this prophecy. Also a verb - notzer - which means to "preserve / guard" (one of the 13 Attributes of GOD revealed to Moses = Notzer Chesed). So "notzri" would be "the one who preserves me".
Reading the Bible in Hebrew is a huge advantage.
Thank you for this interesting perspective. No doubt reading the Bible in Hebrew is a huge advantage; that's one reason I'm following this series of readings.
Greek speaking Jews who knew their Tanakh might recognize the significance of this word, but I'm wondering whether Greek speaking early Christians who hadn't started from a Jewish position would. They might be inclined to misinterpret it as a geographic reference, since that would be in accord with their cultural norms. I'm also wondering if the Greek form really is an amalgam of two Hebrew words; it might represent just one, in which case one wonders which one. The idea of Branch of David/Messiah/the one who preserves would seem to be the stronger statement, as opposed to a relatively insignificant geographical reference -- insignificant to us, but not necessarily to a Hellenist.
There are of course numerous references to Nazareth in relation to Yeshua, and Mary, scattered across the gospels, and also Acts. On the surface it seems almost an open and shut case.: Jesus of/from Nazareth. But it bothers me. I'm thinking it's not impossible that a later editor, or editorial board, working in the second century, comprised of persons of Hellenistic background, might not have recognized the loaded nature of the original Hebrew word, and responded to a sense more in accord with their own brand of significance (geography, in its characteristic political sense). Editors are usually after concision, accuracy, and consistency, so the appearance of these numerous Nazareth statements might be an editorial addition, done for the sake of accuracy (from their perspective) combined with consistency, and possibly also emphasis.
Yes, you are right about early Christians without a Jewish background, who may have 'helped by simplifying' a good many things in Scripture based on their own perceptions. I don't necessarily think they edited the apostles' letters, but the way they taught the NT diverged from the Jewish Christians (who were eventually pushed out of the church altogether).
I should also mention that the Jewish way of reading of the Scriptures for centuries was different from Greek exegesis. Instead of aiming at consistency and precision (i.e. the 'best' interpretation wins, and the others are discarded), a given phrase in Hebrew was allowed to say more than one thing simultaneously, and all of the results were considered valid words of GOD. Not only was that not considered a problem, it was upheld as proof that the Bible is a supernatural book.
And to make things even more fluid, there were no vowels or punctuation marks in the Hebrew Tanach until around 800 AD when the "Masoretic Text" was created... ironically, by the Karaites... and became the standard text for the rabbinic community. But even then, the purpose was to unify public reading, not to lock down the meaning of the original Hebrew.
Rabbinic teachers later became more rigid about sticking to the MT, I assume out of a need to control the results. :) But some inconvenient readings still leak through, which are skated over by English-speaking rabbis. They tend to run away from me once they realize I want to discuss the MT Hebrew.
You are an interesting person.
Or, the Nazarene, of that sect? Or, The Nazarene, The Branch?