 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Before you say "no way" you better get seated and read the whole of these two article for I promise you an eye opening experience if you do.
2 Cor 5:17 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (KJV)
Those are thought-provoking questions to say the least. I know most of you who are reading this article are tempted to put it down and consider what I have asked you to consider as absolute folly. I can only plead with you to read these two articles in full, and understand for yourself what I discovered over fifteen years of in-depth Bible study which was never taught to me by the Christian Church or even Seminary.
In order to peak you curiosity to read this article in full, I will expose at this time the real meaning Paul intended his Gentile hearers to have when he taught them about being a “new creation in Christ.” Let us examine the passage in II Cor. in detail from resources like a Christian Greek Lexicon.
2 Cor 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (KJV)
First of all it is mandatory we understand correctly what the word “creature” means in the original language in which Paul spoke and later was recorded in Greek.
The Thayer’s Greek Lexicon [a Christian book no less] defines “creature” in II Cor. 5:17 as follows: 2937 Strong’s Numbers: ktisis- the act of founding, establishing, building, etc.
I guess I could just dive right in and tell you that we as Christians and followers of Jesus has completely misunderstood the Jewish concept of being "born again" but it would serve us well to first understand the historical context of such passages in order to fully appreciate the Jewish concept of being "born again" and the discourse between Nicodemus and Jesus as found in John chapter 3.
The Noahide Commandments are the Commandments given by the Torah (the Old Testament) to the Gentiles of the world (first given to Adam and later given to Noah), which according to Rabbinic tradition and the First Church Council in Acts 15:17-19 and Acts 15:28-29 (which was headed up by James, the Lord's brother and head of the Jerusalem church) were given by God to Gentiles like Adam and Noah. It is these commandments which if obeyed by the non-Jews of the world will be rewarded with eternal life! According to Rabbinic teaching & Acts 15 (which Jesus believed and taught himself along with his followers), those Gentiles who observe these precepts are assured their share in the World to Come, regardless of what fanciful interpretations were later to be invented by both the Catholic & Protestant churches and most probably heard in your modern churches today. Jesus was and is a Jew. He never ascribed to Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, or Mormon church doctrine. He believed and taught the truth as received from his Father in Heaven. The Christian must come to an understanding that the religion of Jesus (Biblical Judaism and not Rabbinic Judaism) has always recognized two different religious codes:
The eighteenth century Talmudist Rabbi Jacob Emden wrote a letter that has been discovered by archeologists which states: "Jesus (Yeshua) never intended to abolish Judaism, but only to establish a new religion for the Gentiles based upon the ancient Noahide Commandments transmitted by Moses on Mount Sinai." Let me say that Emden more correctly should have said "RE-ESTABLISH" for the Gentiles the religious foundations that had previously been given by God to the Gentiles since the Garden of Eden and later renewed at Sinai. Emden stressed in his letter that Jesus brought about a "double blessing" to the world, by strengthening the Torah of Moses and at the same time removing idolatry from the midst of the Gentiles. Unfortunately, Emden's thesis in the letter never gained a substantial following by fellow Jews. The most obvious reason would seem to be the frequent harsh statements made by Jesus against the rabbis and Jews of his time (Matt. 23). This chapter has seldom been correctly interpreted by the Christian Church because the church, for the most part, lacks the facts & information concerning the historical, religious, and political background surrounding Yeshua's statements which are necessary to correctly understand such a chastisement of a particular "sect" within the Pharisees, and not the Pharisees as a whole!Yeshua was not condemning the Pharisee movement, for he was proud to be one, especially a Pharisee belonging to the School of Hillel. Yeshua was not replacing Judaism with Christianity!
Emden helps us understand the original intentions of Yeshua and Paul as he analyzes the beginnings of Christianity. According to the Jewish rabbi, Yeshua and his Apostles, which were later sent by Yeshua to the Gentiles of the world, acted entirely within the Halakhah (correct and accepted Jewish law) in re-creating and re-establishing the religion God had previously given to the Gentiles which was based on the Noahide Commandments (the basic seven Noahide Laws consist of prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, killing, stealing, sexual sins, eating the limb of a living animal (cruelty to animals), and the imperative to establish courts of justice). According to the Jewish Talmud and Tosefta, those Gentiles who observe these statutes are considered to be of the Hasidim (pious ones) of the Nations and merit a share in the World to Come. Even within the Alenu prayer which is prayed by Jews and "God-Fearers" every Sabbath, it states "May all inhabitants of the earth recognize and know....". This means the Gentiles. This prayer for Gentiles is another proof that the will of God is for Gentiles not to perish but have everlasting life. In the Mishnah (the Oral Law), in Pirke Avot 4.1 it states: "Every assembly that is for the sake of Heaven will in the end be established." Christian assemblies are for the sake of Heaven, yet I must sadly inform you that they have accepted "IN PART" the Noahide Commandments, but not totally! God had given them all to the Gentiles and we are not told today about them in our Christian Churches!
Yeshua and Paul were acquainted with the Essene authors and their Scrolls. Many passages in the New Testament bear striking similarity to the Scrolls (see my previous newsletter about Yeshua and the Secret of the Dead Sea Scrolls). A comprehensive overview of the writings and materials available to us today reveal the Essenes to have been extremely pious Jews who scrupulously followed the Torah (the instruction and teaching of God, more commonly called the "Law"), whereas Yeshua and Paul are by many portrayed incorrectly as having forsaken their Jewish origins and replaced the Torah with a new religion-Christianity. Such a study also reveals many problems with Essene theology but this is a study done elsewhere and is too extensive for this article. This portrayal of Yeshua forsaking his Jewish faith never happened; sadly I cannot say that for Paul [see Acts 21 where Paul was known to forsake Moses {commandments} and teach Jews to quit circumcising their children]! At lease this is the general picture one is presented with in the majority of churches today; and one will not be able to see through it without diligent study. But this premise goes against Emden's letter. A Christian should know that the Talmud records for us that Moses commanded the Jews to spread the knowledge of the Noahide commandments to all mankind!
Answer for yourself: Did you hear that?
God commanded Moses to spread the knowledge of the Covenant with Noah and its requirements to all Gentiles in the world. Judaism acknowledges this "Gentile Covenant for Salvation" as from God since the time of Mount at Sinai. The questions we have to ask ourselves is this:
As Christians and followers of Yeshua, we must constantly search for the correct interpretations of such an event if we are to correctly understand the Bible and it's message to the Gentile and his salvation.
A passage in the Jerusalem Talmud records for us: "Menahem the Essene and 160 Essene disciples left the Jewish community" (remember not all Essenes lived in & around the Dead Sea) "about 20 B.C. on a mission to the Gentiles to take the "world" the Noahide Covenant, thus assuring obedient and observant Gentiles a place in the World to Come." This Menahem served as a vice-president of the Sanhedrin under the sage Hillel who was the Nassi (President of the Sanhedrin) some thirty years before Jesus’ birth. The Mishnah makes quite clear that Menahem subjected himself totally to Hillel's authority (who loved the Gentiles), thus establishing a link between the Essenes and Hillel (who was a conservative Pharisee). Also of importance is the link between the two camps (Essenes & Pharisees) in that they were both known as "Hasidim." Menahem the Essene left Hillel's Sanhedrin for his mission to the world and was then replaced by the sage Shammai (who did not like the Gentiles). Shammai succeeded him as vice-president, probably about 20 B.C., and the influences of Hillel began to be replaced with those of Shammai [who was strongly anti-Gentile and deemed no Gentile worthy that the message of God's salvation be taken to them].
The first disputes regarding the Oral law (that was passed down for some 1700 years from Moses at Sinai) took place at this time between the sages and students of Hillel and Shammai (beginning about 20 years prior to Yeshua's birth). Their respective schools (Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai) were to clash over 350 times on issues of the Oral Law during the next hundred years. Nor were these always minor disputes for even once the Zealots connected with Shammai massacred and killed many of the Pharisees. The issues between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai went to the very core of what Judaism stood for (and what Jesus stood for). One of the major areas of contention was Judaism's attitude toward salvation of the Gentiles.
Answer for yourself: What side would Yeshua agree with?
The Schools of Shammai and Hillel both accepted all of the commandments contained in the five "written" books of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). But the written law of Moses is too brief to be applied to practical issues of everyday life, and it was accepted that God also gave an oral and more detailed tradition was originally given to Adam, then to Noah, and finally handed down to Moses at Sinai. The debates of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai centered on this oral tradition.
This oral tradition was passed down by Moses and it was forbidden to be set to writing. It was this Oral Law that later caused controversy among the rabbis; especially Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. Finally, out of fear it would be forgotten due to all the persecution of Judaism and the deaths of its leaders at the hands of Gentiles, the sages permitted it to be committed to writing. The first major works were the Mishnah (200 A.D.) and the Tosefta (4th century), followed by two Talmuds; the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud (5th century). The Babylonian version is more popular than the Jerusalem Talmud. Also at this time, books of homilies known as Midrash began to appear. The two major commentaries to the Babylonian Talmud are those of Rashi and the Tosefta. Why did I mention these works? The Mishnah, Talmud and Tosefta are the works of primary interest and authority when researching the Jewish law and tradition that surrounded Jesus and his teachings in the first century.
The School of Shammai [anti-Gentiles] came upon the Jewish scene 20 years before Jesus’ birth, and flourished for around 100 years. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the seat of the Sanhedrin was relocated to Yavneh, where the Halakhah (accepted interpretation of Jewish Law) of the School of Bet Hillel became once again the established Halakhah (accepted interpretation for all issues of Jewish law). Also at this time, God spoke from Heaven and a Heavenly Voice was heard declaring the Law was to be from that time forward decided in favor of the interpretations of the School of Bet Hillel. Since that time all Jewry has accepted the teachings of Bet Hillel. But this was too late to save Israel from the judgment of God for violating the commandments of the Second Tablet of the Law....the Commandments affecting relationships between man and men [Jew/Jew; Jew/Gentile].
Now listen closely. Jesus’ debates with the Pharisees recorded in the New Testament were actually disputes with the Pharisees representing the School of Shammai and NOT the School of Hillel. Every Christian needs to set down and thing hard upon what I just said; especially in light of the teaching of anti-Semitic Gentile Christianity that all Pharisees opposed Jesus. Such a teaching is simply not true and a tragic misrepresentation of history. Jesus adopts the views of Hillel and the School of Hillel on "all" matters of Halakhah (interpretation) except on the matter of divorce, where he sides with the School of Shammai (which held a more strict interpretation). At the time of Jesus the interpretations and teachings Bet Shammai were influencing Jewish life and institutions more than Hillel's, and it was this way for almost 100 years. Through Shammai's teachings Israel was "loosing her way." It would be primarily the influence of Shammai and his hatred of the non-Jew by which Israel will fail to "merit" the Kingdom of Heaven and her King and the day of her visitation. The prophecies would not be fulfilled and the Messiah would not be revealed to a nation of Priests which hated those to whom she was called to go. Hillel had died when Jesus was 13-14 years old, and Hillel's influence in Israel was rapidly being replaced with the contemporary teachings of Shammai. Jesus (who accepted and agreed with Hillel) and Shammai (and Shammai's many students) were to clash continually! The Shammai Pharisees (and not the Hillel Pharisees) were responsible for handing over Jesus to the Chief Priest, and Sadducees and Romans for crucifixion, and this was a violation of Jewish Law. Couple this with the relationship the Shammaites had with the Sadducean Zealots in the priesthood, little wonder that the Chief Priests (Sadducees) capture Jesus and hand him over to the Romans to be crucified. Notice that the Hillel Pharisees (whom the majority of the people supported and followed) had nothing to do with Yeshua's crucifixion (it was they who warned Jesus to flee for his life in Luke 13:31). When you read Matt. 23 you cannot help but see Yeshua chastising the Pharisees; but what we fail to notice is that there were many sects under the umbrella of the Pharisees and Jesus says "Pharisees who"....indicating that many were not to be included in his rebuke of the insincere Pharisees. Yeshua took odds with the Shammaite Pharisees, not the Hillel Pharisees!
The Christian Church's failure to understand this has led them to erroneously believe that Jesus was rejecting his own religion by chastising the pharisees rather than calling for repentance within it by whose "who" had departed from God's will!
Now let us learn something that Christianity has neve taught you.
The Jewish people knew from ancient prophecy that their Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Gentiles (Dan. 9 describes 490 years that are allotted to the Jewish people to either usher in the Messianic Kingdom or else suffer destruction). Bet Hillel believed that reaching out to the Gentiles (since historically Israel had failed to be "a light unto the Gentiles") was the correct approach to possibly avoiding the coming destruction. I cannot stress the importance of the above consideration in the minds of the Jews like Hillel in the times of Jesus. Hillel and his students [School of Hillel Pharisees] maintained that righteous Gentiles merit salvation just as Jews do (Hillel, like Yeshua, accepted the teachings connected with the Laws of Noah), and it was their hope that a mission to the Gentiles could avert the destruction of their land and win God's approval, thus influencing God to repent of the destruction prophesied. Bet Shammai however looked down upon the Gentile world, holding that NOT even the most righteous Gentile could merit a share in the World to Come. Shammai believed the Gentiles deserved "hell" and no attempts should be made to alter their destiny. The Jewish people and their teachers have since declared Bet Shammai's views to be null and void, as did the Heavenly Voice toward the close of the first century (just the way God spoke at Jesus' immersion). Shammai and the Bet Shammai were indeed the Pharisees and priests that Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus had to contend with within the pages of our Bibles, and not the Hillel Pharisees. Paul the Apostle's insistence that Gentiles be admitted into the early Messianic Jewish Church was based on Bet Hillel's position that righteous Gentiles merit salvation. Let us not forget that Paul had studied under Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, a grandson of Hillel where he received such instruction! Now you can better understand that the anti-Jewish passages contained in the New Testament were directed against the Shammaites, and not the Judaism which followed Bet Hillel, or even today which follows the instruction and interpretations of Hillel.
Yeshua and his disciples warned all men everywhere not to "destroy" the Torah of Israel. Understand that is Paul's theology early in his life; sadly we have letters later in his life that teach the opposite. It is not my wish to get into the "Paul Problem" in this article but let it suffice that the truth about Paul has not often found the light day; especially in light of Gentile tradition that as overtaken historical truth.
Answer for yourself: Did Paul change his religious beliefs during his life or did the Gentile church create theology and put it in Paul's mouth? You might be surprised at the answer to that question.
A Jew is not permitted to leave his Torah, for Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians Chapter 5 (remember Galatians was written to Gentiles) "I, Paul, say to you that if you (writing to Gentiles) receive circumcision (along with immersion that makes you a Jew...ie., conversion), the Messiah will do you no good at all."
Answer for yourself: What did Paul mean by the above comment?
I will deal with the meaning of that last phrase in a future newsletter but the core of truth related to this statement by Paul is that the death of Yeshua caused a movement within a Gentile hating Judaism taking God and the Gentile's Covenant to the nations to the world; no longer was forced circumcision of the Gentile and full conversion the only option for the non-Jew to be taken the salvation of the Jews and fellowship with other Jews. Enforced circumcision was the tactic of the Shammai Pharisees to keep Gentiles apart from them. This is not love but rather hatred of the Gentiles. Acts 15 is the turning point on this. Paul goes on to say "You can take it from me that every man (Gentile) who receives circumcision [prior to Acts 15 circumcision was understood as necessary for the Gentile coming to God thereby converting to Judaism]. It was the belief of the early church that Yeshua was the Messiah and because of this belief and his death and expected return that James and the Jerusalem church repented of their bigotry toward the non-Jew and no longer could enforce circumcision upon the non-Jew as had been done previously. This major step by Jews occurs in Acts 15 and letters were written to strengthen the Gentile churches thereby enforcing this decision for all Gentiles (Acts 15 and 16). A Jew by birth of course was circumcised and is obligated to keep the "entire Torah" but a converted Gentile was also expected to be circumcised and immersed and likewise under obligation to keep the 'entire' Torah " (613). But this was to change with Acts 15 and the repentance of James and the Jerusalem Church in regards to enforced circumcision of the non-Jew. A "converted" Gentile was considered "Jewish" and obligated to keep the 613 mitzvoth as were other natural born Jews. Paul is teaching us that a Gentile (like you and me) who is immersed [traditional way of receiving non-Jews into faith with God] and who is circumcised [again part of the conversion process] is obligated to keep the entire Torah as if we were born a Jew! But since Yeshua's death lead to a movement within Judaism that repented of their stance toward non-Jews and no longer required circumcision of the non-Jew then to not take advantage of this nullifies the benefit of Yeshua's death and the movement that it produced. If one did not recognize this blessings [no longer required of a non-Jew to be converted to be accepted by God] that comes from the death of Yeshua then we better understand Paul's statement that Yeshua [believed to be the Messiah] profited them not at all.
It must now be obvious that Paul never intended for that to be your understanding; he never said that! Our problem is that we misinterpret the teachings of Paul not having a proper background necessary to understand correctly what he is saying. Let us begin with what happens when we are "Born-Again". Understand that Judaism was becoming divided in how to handle the non-Jew. The Jewish hatred for the Jews had enforced full conversion and circumcision on the male in hopes of it being a deterrent from having to deal with them since the Jews looked down on the non-Jew. But not all Jews did; as we just saw in Yeshua and the Pharisee School of Hillel. Judaism was torn within on what to do with the non-Jew. Previously being circumcised and then immersed meant full conversion. This was called "Being Born Again" in a Jewish context. This is not a Christian term; only stolen by them and given a new definition much later. But being "Born Again" has been wrenched from its Jewish context and given a meaning completely different from what it meant to Jesus/Yeshua. Now the question of enforcing circumcision as part of this process was being rethought by Jews who were repenting of their bigotry toward the Gentiles. Acts 15 again will be the pivotal point in this theological diversity and the Messianic branch of Hillel Phariseeism will change their ways. Yet at the same time the Shammai School will continue their repressive measures toward the non-Jew and sadly this will be the dominant stance for Israel and will ultimately lead to its destruction in 70 C.E.