Aug 24, 2010
Posted on Aug 24, 2010 in Apostolic Writings, Miscellaneous, Yeshua | 2 comments
I have the privilege of being a part of the editing team for the Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels translation from Vine of David. Every time I go through Aaron Eby’s translation I learn something about either Hebrew or our Master, or both.
Today, I was finishing up reviewing chapters 9-16 of Luke and came across a phrase which Aaron has translated: “He returned to his heart.” It was in the context of Yeshua’s parable of the prodigal son, and his making the decision to return home after his time of rebellion. This reminds me of the phrase we hear so often, “Follow your heart.” However, most of the time we hear that phrase, “Follow your heart,” it generally means: “Go for it!” “Dream big!” “Live the American Dream!” It is usually in the context of self-indulgence, where we are supposed to find that “inner-voice” that is telling us what we need to be doing with our lives to get the fullest experience of life…to “drink in life” with passion. It’s really the opposite of the Hebrew meaning of this phrase (which I will explain further momentarily).
It reminds me of this new movie Eat, Pray, Love, based on the book by Elizabeth Gilbert (which could be subtitled, “Hinduism has allowed me to cast off restraint”). Sadly many Christians are looking to this as a spiritual expression for believers. They are searching for something “more.” They want adventure & romance, and if their current situation can’t provide it they search it out. I’ve seen countless Christian marriages fail in the last 3-4 years because of this. And the answer is usually the same, “I’m following my heart” or “God is leading me in a new direction.” But would God really wreck a marriage, the most primal institution of the world, in order to make “me” happy? Is it really all about me? According to the philosophy of “Follow your heart” it is. However, Scripture actually warns us about the deceptions of the heart:
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)
How many people are being told this? How many people have bought into the lie already, and it’s too late to recognize this? This is where being a diligent student of the Word will allow it to drive our lives, rather than allowing our hearts to drive them. In the context of the passage to which I referenced, the Hebrew literally says the same thing. It is וַיָּשֶׁב אֶל־לִבּוֹ. “And he returned to his heart.” But what does that mean? Does it mean that he finally found his “purpose” in life through reading The Purpose Driven Life? Does it mean he finally got up enough courage to hike the Himalayas? Does it mean he gave up his family, went off to a foreign country and lived it up? Wait… that’s what he did before he “returned to his heart.” So you see, “returning to one’s heart” in the Hebrew sense is not about all of these things, but about “coming to your senses.” It’s about following your head, not your heart. It’s about doing what’s right, rather than what feels good. Why? Because the right path and the difficult path are often the same, and when we choose the right over the wrong, the blessing will be in the journey. The joy will come from within, rather than from anything external. And the fruits will be eternal, rather than momentary.
Have you returned to your heart?
Mar 28, 2010
Posted on Mar 28, 2010 in Apostolic Writings, Miscellaneous, Personal | 0 comments
I had coffee with a friend of mine a few weeks ago and we began to discuss the Scriptures and our beliefs. I’ve only really gotten to know him over the last year or so. He is curious as to my beliefs and has approached me a few times to lovingly debate a few points of doctrine/theology. Although we disagree on many points, we have a mutual respect for each other’s faith and can speak frankly with one another without jeopardizing our relationship (a rarity). As we got into our discussion, however, I realized that he held to a position I haven’t been exposed to in a number of years. It goes something like this:
The Tanach (the Old Testament) represents a lot of stories of faith, and examples of how we should live our lives in obedience to God (in some vague way, as we will see by the next component). And the Gospels, Acts, Hebrews and Revelation are not written as a documents of instruction, therefore they are not “prescriptive” but only “descriptive” in their content, and therefore cannot have any theological bearing in the life of a believer. Wow… I was really dumfounded for a good while, as I mulled over this implications of how his theological perspective had essentially stripped out 90% of the authority of the Scriptures, relegating “prescriptive” or “authoritative” Scripture to the (misunderstood) writings of Paul and possibly the epistles of Peter, James, John & Jude (and even then I’m not sure if all of them hold equal weight with the Pauline epistles according to this theological premise).
This theological supposition seems to be heavily taught in missions-based organizations, because of opposition they have received over the years that their missionary methods were not practiced by the first believers. In other words, it’s not found in the book of Acts. I just did a quick search on the net for the phrase “book of Acts descriptive not prescriptive” and found a blog from a seminary student returning from a class on missions that said it point blank:
The book of Acts is not presented as a prescriptive book. That is, it is not presented as a manual on how a church should be run (you’ll find a lot of that in the epistles) or missions should be conducted. It describes what did happen, not what should/must/will happen in every time and culture.
I think this represents a snapshot of the theological pulse of our seminaries. It was this concept that was ingrained in my friend, and totally blocked our communication. If you’re interested, the passage of Acts in discussion was the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) in which the Apostles presented their ruling on the minimum requirements of non-Jews entering into the faith. The gist of my argument with my friend was that the minimum level of Torah observance was put forth by the Council in Acts 15, and that we should at least be keeping these four basic boundaries as a bare minimum, whether we agreed on the whole of Torah or not. He was in total disagreement, using the argument that since Acts was not “prescriptive” but “descriptive” the ruling of the Council had no bearing in the life of a modern day believer.
Again, Wow…
Here we have a contrast as to the authority of the Apostolic Council making a strong line in the sand for the entire Yeshua faith community verses the Pauline epistles, which were written for a specific purpose (almost always a response to a specific issue) to a specific group of people. Yet this theological position supplants the authority of James, the brother of our Master (and steward of his throne at that time) and the original Apostles of our Master. [editor's note: I am not saying the Pauline epistles are not authoritative. I believe they are, and have a greater appreciation for them now than ever. I am only suggesting that "if" there was a priority, then the Apostolic Council would be first in line, rather than Paul's addresses to specific situations and specific people which do not apply to us as directly as much as the Apostolic decree.]
Does anyone else see a problem with this? Has anyone else ran into this? Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to bridge this gap in our communication?
Dec 11, 2009
Posted on Dec 11, 2009 in Yeshua | 0 comments
This morning I listened to an audio teaching by Daniel Lancaster again and was reminded of the importance of this topic. This teaching is a really good reminder of how we should be actively treating others and thinking the best of one another. I was just going to post the link to the audio from the Beth Immanuel site, but it’s currently not listed (they are in the process of re-posting a lot of their audio). So, I have uploaded the audio file for your benefit here. Just click on the audio player below.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Aug 25, 2009
Posted on Aug 25, 2009 in Judaism, Torah, Yeshua | 1 comment
Recently, someone started a discussion on Facebook as to whether followers of Yeshua should follow either a rabbinic (Pharisaic) path verses a more Karaite path in their Torah observance. I’ve got a lot of thoughts on this, but unfortunately am nearly always short on time due to pressing deadlines with my work. I would like to share, however, the brief response I wrote for this discussion:
It is natural to think that the Karaite way of doing things would be a better way of doing things. However, the Karaite interpretation is actually anti-Scriptural. Let’s think about it. If we were to go to a Karaite interpretation of Scripture, we would all being living out the Scriptures as we interpret them. Which means, we would not be in any kind of unity. Which means we would be celebrating the feasts at different times, celebrating them in different ways, trying to fulfill the commandments in different ways. In short, this is chaos and anarchy. The Master (Yeshua) was a Pharisee among Pharisees, in that he was in agreement with the Pharisees in all but one point: hypocrisy.
Here are 3 short examples of the many that can be sited to show his Pharisaic affinity:
- He & his disciples kept the feast at the same times as greater Israel (which was determined by Pharisaic halachah)
- He reclined at the Passover meal (a Pharisaic invention, seemingly contrary to the biblical mandate in Exodus)
- He gave a blessing before eating, strictly a Pharisaic invention
The list could go on and on. These are just off the top of my head. It boils down to this: Yeshua was in agreement with Pharisaic tradition so long as it did not contradict with the written Word. We must examine the words of the Master and the Apostolic writings to determine whether a tradition is able to be kept or not, and follow his example.
The Karaite method is not even an alternative. If we were following the Karaite method, we would revert to the days of the Judges when “Every man did what was right in his own eyes…And they again did wickedness in the eyes of Hashem.”
Jun 2, 2009
Posted on Jun 2, 2009 in Apostolic Writings, FFOZ | 4 comments
One exciting thing about the conference was the re-release of Paul Philip Levertoff’s Love and the Messianic Age, a chasidic-orthodox insight into the message of the Gospel in relation to a chasidic frame of reference, drawing from some of the deepest of mystical texts within Judaism. It was released in hardback (a first for FFOZ) under a new publishing arm of FFOZ called Vine of David (which I will have to discuss at a later date). It is a small book, but packed with a lot of punch. Therefore, they simultaneously released a study guide (which is actually larger than the book) in which Daniel Lancaster and others break down concepts that appear within the text and try to guide the uninitiated reader into a working knowledge of the principles Levertoff uses to explain his discourse. Unless you are extremely familiar with rabbinic works (especially chasidic ones), I suggest you acquire the book and study guide as a set. Lord willing, I hope to publish a full review of the text in the days ahead.
