Category: Messianic 101

How Can Sinners be Allowed in Heaven?

Leave a comment

During the Sermon on the Mount, as recalled in the Gospel of Matthew, (5:19) Yeshua says this (CJB):

So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

Some versions of the Bible say the Kingdom of God, but the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” are considered to be the same thing, which is where those who are saved by the Messiah will be when the Tribulation is over and the new earth and new heaven are formed.

In other words, eternity.

When I read this, I have to ask myself, how can someone who not only sins but teaches others to sin be called the least in heaven? I mean, if you are a sinner teaching others to sin, how can you even be allowed into God’s presence?

As far as I can see, this is the only place where Yeshua makes this statement in all of the Gospels.

So what does it mean? As with any interpretation, we can’t just look at the sentence, but at how that sentence fits into the general lesson or thought. Just before this, Yeshua talks about how he did not come to change the law and that not one of the even smallest elements of the law, i.e. commandments in the Torah, will be changed. Later, he warns everyone that if they aren’t more righteous than the Pharisees they will never enter the kingdom of heaven. We also have to take into account the constant complaint Yeshua had about the Pharisees, which was that they taught their own man-made traditions and laws superseded the mitzvot (laws) of God, as God gave them to us in the Torah.

So, when we look at all sides of this, we can see Yeshua wasn’t saying that anyone is able to enter heaven if they sin and teach others to sin, but that those who obey and teach that man-made regulations are more important than the law, while not directly breaking that law, are going to be least in the kingdom of heaven.

Placing the importance of a man-made tradition or ritual in lieu of what God said is a form of disobedience that isn’t, by definition, a sin because you aren’t really breaking the law, you are just obeying it in a different way than God said you should.

Okay, what the heck does that mean? Let’s look at the example Yeshua gave in Matthew 15:3-6 when he replied to the Pharisees accusing him of breaking the tradition of N’tilat Yadayim (handwashing before eating):

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition

The Pharisees said Yeshua was teaching his people to break the traditions, and by doing so were, in essence, accusing him of breaking the law. His reply indicated that they were the ones breaking the law, and not the law of men but the law of God, by teaching that the law of men was more important than the law of God.

Let’s try this again: a korban is something devoted or offered to God, such as one of the sacrifices in Leviticus 1-7, but in this case, Yeshua wasn’t talking about something that was associated with sin or guilt. And although there is no specific Torah statement that to not offer a korban is a sin, still and all, you don’t renege on that offer. For instance, Hannah prayed for a child and offered the child as a Nazir to God; after Samuel was born, if she hadn’t delivered Samuel to Eli, the Cohen HaGadol, that would have been a sin. But, if she had only asked for a child and never devoted it to God, raising Samuel herself would not have been a sin.

Now, the Pharisees taught that once you offered a korban to God you couldn’t then give it to your parents, even if they desperately needed it because that would be a sin. And what Yeshua said was if they refuse to give to their needy parents that which they offered as a korban to God, then they were violating the 5th commandment.

How can these completely opposite opinions be reconciled? I believe the korban in this example that is being offered was not already offered but was intended to be offered. I justify this interpretation because most of the offerings made were of an animal or grain, so once given it was sacrificed, burnt upon the altar, and there was no way it could be retrieved; but, if someone tells their parents they can’t have something they need because it is devoted to God (or, more accurately, because I intend to devote it to God), that is where Yeshua said they break the law.

It is not a sin to intend to devote something to God, then change your mind because there is a greater need for it elsewhere. For instance, your parents.

So, what we have here is that this passage doesn’t imply when we sin and teach others to sin, we can still get into heaven. If someone does and teaches others that you can commit adultery, fornicate to your heart’s desire, totally disregard the Shabbat, or any such obvious disobedience to the laws God gave us in the Torah, they are not going to get a free pass to eternity in God’s presence. However, if someone is trying to obey and teach others to obey the law, but they are confused and teaching traditions of men instead of God’s way, which is what God-loving Christians have been doing for millennia, then they may still get into heaven, but they won’t be given front-row seats. Instead of a mansion, they may get a shack.

That reminds me of a story….

A Catholic Cardinal dies and goes to heaven. He is told he will be led to the place reserved for him, and as he is walking he sees beautiful mansions, and in one of them was someone he knew had been a New York City taxi driver.

As he is led, the mansions become houses, the houses become condos, and he is finally told, “This is for you.” In front of him is a small shack.

He asks the angel, “Are you sure? I devoted my life to God and was a Cardinal, so why am I in a shack and some hack from the Big Apple in a mansion?”

The angel said, “When you preached, people slept, but when he drove, people prayed.”

We should do what God said we should do, the way God said we should do it, and always teach others to obey what God says in the Torah. The New Covenant writings are not commandments from God, they are commentary by human beings, referencing what God said in the Torah. What Yeshua was warning the people about in Matthew 5:19 is that you can disobey a commandment by God by following a man-made tradition that is actually designed to fulfill a commandment.

And, for the record, Yeshua never said all man-made traditions are bad- only those that are given precedence over God’s commandments.

So, nu? How can I know which is the right one to obey? The answer is you need to know which commandments are from God, and which are man-made, and the only way you will know that, for certain, is to read the Torah.

Thank you for being here and please share these messages with everyone you know, subscribe to this ministry here and also on my YouTube channel (use the link above), and remember that I always welcome your comments.

Until next time, L’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!

Why I Believe the Gospel of John Isn’t.

1 Comment

Isn’t what? Well, isn’t a Gospel, meaning a truthful description of who Yeshua was and of his ministry. I also don’t believe it was written by a Jew, or, at least, by a Jew who was writing to Jews.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

John has long been recognized as being very different from the other Gospels; Matthew, Mark, and Luke are written as historical narratives that relate to the events in Yeshua’s life. John, on the other hand, while mentioning events in Yeshua’s life, is written as a spiritual revelation, and instead of plain language is full of overly spiritual double-talk:

I am he, and he is me; you see me, you see him, and I know him and he knows me but you don’t know me so you don’t know him, but if you knew him you would know me, yadda-yadda-yadda…

The thing about the Book of John that really gets my goat, and yes- this is a personal peeve– is that it seems to be written by a Gentile, to Gentiles, and has many subtle anti-Semitic undertones. And, frankly, I’m not the only one who feels that way.

Only in the Gospel of John do we hear Yeshua refer to the Torah (when talking to the Pharisees in John 10:34) as “your law”. If Yeshua was the word come to life, then why would he differentiate himself from who and what he is? If Yeshua was a Jew, he would never say “your law” when referring to the Torah; he would say “the law” or “the Torah”, but not talk about it as if he had no relationship to it or that it had no meaning to him.

And in the other three gospels, the term “the Jews” is used about 16 times, total within all three, but in John, that term is used some 67 times! When you are talking about your own people, do you refer to them as “those (whatever) people”? Of course not- if you are Jewish, you say “my people” or “them”; if you are Italian and talking about other Italians, you don’t say “those Italians”, you say “them” or “us” or some other term that recognizes your attachment and solidarity with them. But we don’t see that in John- instead, we see Yeshua talking to the Pharisees and Sadducees about the people as if they are different from him.

In the other gospels, it is clear that the real enemies of Yeshua are the power elite, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but in John, it seems that all the Judeans are against Yeshua.

One really big difference is that in the other three, Yeshua never makes the absolute claim that he is the Messiah, except to his Talmudim (Disciples), whereas in John, he says it outright to the Samaritan woman (John 4:26) and makes claim to being one with God multiple times, and also claims that he is the son of God, whereas in the other gospels he refers to himself as the Son of Man.

In my experience, John is the only gospel that is used when people try to justify that God, Yeshua, and the Ruach HaKodesh are all one-and-the-same entity.

One of the most valuable tools in biblical exegesis is called Hermeneutics, which is the idea that the Bible does not contradict itself. We all have been told, over and over, that God is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow and many believe the Bible to be infallible, and the perfect word of God, directly from God.

For the record, I don’t buy that for a moment, but that’s a different message.

So, if the Bible is infallible and God’s word is perfect, then hermeneutically we can prove John’s gospel is not scripture because it is so different, and does contradict what we read in the other gospels. In John, Yeshua claims to be the Messiah to many people but not in any other gospel; in John, Yeshua’s ministry seems to be only one year but the other gospels make it about three years; in John, Yeshua is tried before the Pesach meal but in the other three, it is after; in John, Yeshua claims to be not just the son of God but God, himself, yet in the other gospels he calls himself the Son of Man.

John was most likely written at the end of the First Century when more Gentiles were converting to this new sect of Judaism than Jews who were accepting Yeshua as their Messiah. And when Jews did accept Yeshua as the Messiah, remember that this was not a conversion: there was no conversion of Jews to Christianity: the early “church” was a synagogue, and the Gentiles who accepted Yeshua as Messiah were learning how to live a Jewish lifestyle, just as Yeshua lived. The truth of the beginning of what we call Christianity today is that the only conversion was from paganism to Judaism, or at best, a sect of Judaism. From the turn of the first century until Constantine created modern Christianity (about 325 CE), there were Jews, those Jews and Gentiles who accepted Yeshua as the Messiah, and pagans. The Believing Gentiles were learning about the Torah and how to live as Yeshua did, although the Gentiles that were taking command of the movement began to leave Judaism and form different worship, such as changing the Shabbat to Sunday (Ignatius of Antioch in 98 CE) and misinterpreting the letter sent by the Elders (Acts 15) as meaning Gentile Believers were excluded from following Torah.

John was, in my opinion, either written by a Gentile using John’s name, or if John, a Jewish follower and Disciple of Yeshua, did write it, he wrote it so that Gentile Believers could separate themselves from Torah and worship Yeshua not just as the Messiah, but as God, as well. That opens the question of why a Disciple of Messiah would reject his own religion.

Many Christians I have known feel that John is the best Gospel, and when I was first open to learning about Yeshua, I was told to read John before any other gospel. Now, some 20 plus years after coming to accept Yeshua and knowing the entire Bible very well, I know that the Gospel of John is an anti-Semitic and separatist book designed so that Gentiles can feel comfortable rejecting the Torah and Judaism as separate from Yeshua, what he taught, and to worship Yeshua as God.

There are many out there who will find this message not just disturbing, but maybe even blasphemous, and that is too bad. I doubt many Gentile Believers who were raised Christian (any denomination) can understand how a Jewish person, Believer or not, feels reading this gospel. The other Gospels are fine because they don’t hate Jews, but the Gospel of John is full of subtle, Jew-hating terminology.

If it was up to me, I would throw the Gospel of John, along with nearly all the Epistles of Shaul (Paul) out of the New Covenant. I would keep Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, and Revelation, and deep-six the rest, or have them in a separate volume, like the Apocrypha.

I hope that no one is offended, but I understand there might be a sense of wanting to defend this gospel because, well, you just need to! “Why?” “Because, that’s why!”

If that’s how you feel, maybe you should consider why you feel that way. I mean, really, if the Gospel of John is verifiable and hermeneutically validated as scripture, you wouldn’t need to say “because” as the reason to defend it, because “because” is not a reason. 

That’s my message for today. It is my opinion, you do not have to agree, but if you do agree, I would appreciate you letting me know with a “Like” or something similar, even a comment. And if you think I am out of my mind, please comment as well, but be nice.

In the meantime, thank you for being here; please share these messages (if you dare), and until the next time, L’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!

How To Properly Interpret The Bible: Conclusion

Leave a comment

Thank you for having allowed me to share with you what I have learned about properly interpreting the Bible, and I hope now, as we have come to the end of this teaching series, that it has been of value to you.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

We have covered the importance of using Circles of Context and Hermeneutics when trying to figure out just what the writer of a passage is trying to say, and to be able to glean the deeper, more spiritual messages through the use of the Jewish exegesis tool called PaRDeS.

We also now know that it is important to be selective when using extra-biblical resources, such as commentaries, and that right from the start you should have a Chumash, a Concordance, and the Interlinear Bible set at your disposal to be able to understand the real meaning of what is written in the Bible.

And, of course, knowing the language and the historical usage of phrases and words will allow you to know better what the writer intended to say, without having the true meaning skewed by the current connotation of certain words.

There is one last tidbit of knowledge I would like to share with you now, at the end of this teaching, which is:

You can’t make an argument from nothing.

Too often people tell you what the Bible says without having any reason other than it is what they want to believe. They take passages out of context, they assume something must have happened, and they extrapolate events to create something that can’t be found anywhere in the scriptures.

We may be able to make certain assumptions, such as after the circumcision of Abraham, he was not feeling quite himself for a few days. There’s nothing in the Bible that says that, but it is a safe assumption. However, the Talmud states that the three angels visited Abraham on the third day after his circumcision, and that is an example of making an argument from nothing.

The Rabbis obviously wanted to show the humility and compassion which Abraham had for others, and we know that from the Tanakh because he argued to save any righteous men that might be in Sodom. But, to say that the angels came on the third day after the circumcision, is just plain unfounded.

True, the visit was the very next thing in the Tanakh after the circumcisions:

Genesis 17:27:
And every male in Abraham’s household was circumcised along with him. That included those born into his family or bought from a stranger.

which was followed immediately by

Genesis 18:1:
The Lord appeared to Abraham near the large trees of Mamre.

but who knows how much time elapsed between those two events? Because there is nothing in the Tanakh that tells us how much time elapsed between these events, to make a statement that one event happened at a certain time after the other is making an argument from nothing, and as such, is not a verifiable interpretation.

When you believe you have an understanding of something that you read in the Bible, use the tools we have discussed to verify your belief. You may be given a divine understanding of a passage, but if you can’t verify it using these tools, then it must be questioned. And if someone tells you what something in the Bible means, you need to verify it, for yourself, before you accept it or (God forbid!) teach it to anyone else as truth.

Remember: when the blind lead the blind, they both fall into a hole. When it comes to being able to properly interpret the Bible, use the tools you have learned here to make sure that you aren’t being led into a hole.

Thank you again, and please share these lessons with everyone you know, subscribe to this ministry on both YouTube and here on my website, and please take the time to check out my books and the rest of my website.

This has been a real pleasure for me, and if there is any particular topic you would like to see a teaching on, please do not hesitate to suggest it to me.

Until next time, L’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!

How To Properly Interpret The Bible: Lesson 6- Language and Cultural Usage

Leave a comment

In Lesson 2 we talked about Circles of Context and how that included the cultural usage, as well. Today we will look a little deeper into that, along with the need to be familiar with the language.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

Let me start by saying you do not have to be fluent in either Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to properly interpret the Bible, but only that you should be able to have a means of examining the original language used in a passage.

And there is more to it than that: you need to be able to know the historically correct cultural usage of the language in the Bible as it was used at that time, in everyday speech.

For instance, throughout the Bible we read about “the fear of Adonai”, but what is that? Does it mean to be afraid of God? Do we live our lives being scared of what God might do to us if we sin? That doesn’t seem to make sense when we consider how many times we are told that God loves us, he is merciful and compassionate, and that he understands our weaknesses and helps us to overcome them.

The proper cultural usage of the term “fear of the Lord” means to worship God. To “fear” God was not used, in those days, to be an expectation of physical harm or spiritual damnation, but to worship God as he commands us to do.

Of course, if you reject God then you do have something to be afraid of, which (who knows) maybe the reason they use the word” fear” to mean proper worship since improper worship would lead to damnation, and who, believing in God, wouldn’t be afraid of that?

In the book of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), the writer’s conclusion is that fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Now, how can being afraid be the beginning of wisdom, especially when we (using hermeneutics) consider that Shaul (Paul) tells his protégé Timothy (in 2 Timothy 1:7) that God gives us a spirit who produces not timidity, but power, love, and self-discipline?

What Shaul is saying is that when we worship the Lord we are not to be afraid, but rather to be strong and confident. This will sound like an oxymoron, but the proper fear of the Lord will make us fearless.

There are times, though, when we are supposed to be afraid. For instance, in Matthew 10:28 we are told not to be afraid of those who can harm the body, but the one who can destroy both body and soul. Clearly, that is something to be afraid of.

I have been studying Hebrew for a couple of years now; I used Rosetta Stone and now use Duolingo. I work at it about 15 or 20 minutes a day, and it is slow going. I used to be good at language learning, but (as studies confirm) now that I am an old fart it is harder for me to remember the words. It is especially hard since there is no one else here who is fluent in Hebrew to help me practice and correct me. Yet, this constant study of Hebrew has helped me, even with the little I know, to better understand what is written in the Tanakh.

Many years ago I earned a Certificate in Messianic Studies which included classes on First Century Jewish culture. Without understanding the historical meaning and usage of the words at that time, we can’t always know what people really meant when they wrote things down, which we now read in the Bible.

Here’s another example: in Matthew 5:17, which is, in my opinion, one of the most misinterpreted passages in the entire Bible, Yeshua says he did not come to change the law but to fulfill it. Many “experts” interpret this as meaning Yeshua completed the law and use that as a polemic against following the Torah, even though Yeshua said, plainly, that he did not come to change anything!

When we consider the cultural usage of the language, in First Century Rabbi-speak, to “fulfill” meant to interpret correctly. It has nothing to do with completing or doing away with anything. And when we use that understanding of the meaning of the word with what Yeshua taught in his sermon on the mount, we can see that he was interpreting the law more accurately than the Pharisees or Scribes had been doing, because he gave the spiritual understanding as well as the plain language meaning (remember P’shat and Remes?).

The same holds true when we read in some Bible versions the use of the word “trespass” in the Lord’s Prayer. Of course, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t walk on each other’s lawn; to “trespass” meant to misinterpret the Torah. Therefore, to fulfill the law would lead people to salvation whereas to trespass would lead people into sin.

The previous lesson covered using an Interlinear Bible and a concordance, which will give you the translations of the Hebrew and Greek used in the Bible, but if you really want to allow the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) to lead you to what God wants you to see, I recommend studying Hebrew on your own. Now, for myself, I am not so worried about knowing Greek to understand the New Covenant better because I believe that when I know the Tanakh, I will be able to determine what in the New Covenant makes sense, hermeneutically, and what doesn’t.

And, yes- although it is outside the scope of this training series, I do believe there is much in the New Covenant that doesn’t need to be in the Bible. But, as I say, that is for a different time.

That’s it for this lesson, and next time we get together I will conclude this teaching series.

Until then, L’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!

Hanukkah 2020 Message

1 Comment

חג שמח! Chag Sameach!

Happy Hanukkah to all who celebrate this joyous holiday.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

The Torah parashah for this Shabbat is called Vayeshev, which relates the story of Joseph. It begins with Israel giving him the coat of many colors, how he tells his brothers of his dreams showing he will rule over them one day which leads, along with other reasons, to his brother’s plot to destroy him, to him being sold into slavery in Egypt. While a slave, he is unjustly accused by his master’s wife, thrown into jail, and while there he interprets the dreams of the Pharaoh’s Baker and Cupbearer. The parashah ends with how the Cupbearer, after being restored to his post as Joseph saw in his dream, forgets to mention Joseph to the Pharaoh.

I think, though, instead of the parashah, I would like to talk with you about Hanukkah. After all, we all know the story of Joseph, but how many really know about Hanukkah?

You won’t find the story anywhere in the Tanakh, and it’s only mentioned, briefly, in the New Covenant. The places you will find the story of Hanukkah, which is told in the Books of the Maccabees (there were originally supposed to be five books, but they have been condensed into two), is in the Talmud, Septuagint, and the Apocrypha, and the only place you will find the Apocrypha included with scripture is in a Catholic Bible.

In the first book of the Maccabees, we are told how Antiochus IV Epiphanes was continuing the program called Hellenization, which was started about 1-1/2 Centuries earlier by Alexander the Great. Hellenization is the replacement of all cultures with that of the Greeks, and so in Judea, under Antiochus, circumcision and any other Jewish ritual or worship was strictly forbidden. He sacrificed pigs on the altar in the Temple of Solomon, which is the abomination that causes desecration Daniel prophesied about.

One of the generals, in a town called Modein, was enforcing these laws and as one of the priests of the town was converting to the Greek religion, the father of the Maccabees, Mattathias, became zealous for God and killed the priest, as well as the soldiers of the king. After this act of rebellion, he and his 5 sons hid in the desert, and as word got around he gained followers who wanted to rid Judea of the Seleucid rule.

Eventually, there was a full-out rebellion, and these Jewish farmers and shepherds, with little more than pitchforks, hoes, and other farming implements, fought against what was probably the best armed and most experienced professional army the world knew at that time. Imagine a man with a sharpened stick going against an elephant wearing armor plating on its body and archers sitting on its back. That would be like you or I standing in the way of an Abrams tank!

And the real miracle of Hanukkah doesn’t have to do with a lamp but is the fact that we won!

The temple was cleansed and ritual purification was to begin, with the relighting of the Ner Tamid, the Eternal Light that was never supposed to be extinguished.

Now, here is where the story is embellished with Jewish mythology from the Babylonian Talmud: there is no mention of oil lasting 8 days anywhere in the books of the Maccabees. According to legend, there was only one day’s worth of ritually purified oil for the Ner Tamid, but it miraculously burned for 8 days, which was just the right amount of time needed to produce more ritually pure oil. This is why we light the Hanukkiah (it is not a menorah) with a new candle every night during the 8 nights of Hanukkah. The ninth candle, which is called the Shamash (leader) is used to light the other candles as we recite the prayer for the Hanukkah candles:

Bah-rookh ah-tah ah-doh-noi, eh-loh-hay-noo meh-lekh hah-oh-lahm, ah-sher ki-deh-shah-noo beh-mitz-voh-tahv, veh-tzee-vah-noo, leh-hahd-lik nayr, shel kha-noo-kah
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us to kindle the Chanukah light.

The second book of the Maccabees is a continuation of the story and outlines the events after the initial rebellion, the leadership by the oldest Maccabee, Judas, and how he restored Jewish rule and freedom of worship in Judea. It also tells of the eventual plots against the Maccabees, resulting in they’re being deposed by the very people they saved.

There are also a number of atrocities outlined in these books regarding the torture of the Jews who refused to accept the Greek religion. When Antiochus heard of a rebellion, his army slaughtered some 40,000 men, women, and children, and another 40,000 were enslaved.

One story from 2 Maccabees is about a woman with 7 sons. They were told they had to eat pork but each refused, being tortured to death, one-by-one, with their mother watching. As the last son refused, it is told how the general even begged the mother to tell her son to comply so she wouldn’t have to lose all her children. Instead of telling her son to eat the pork, she told him not to eat the pork so that the death of the other sons was not for nothing.

Other stories of torture include ripping pregnant women apart, sliding men down a ramp with sharp knives along the way, whippings, cutting out of tongues, hands being cut off, and roasting people alive on a metal pan over a burning hot fire.

Ouch!

But, despite the torture, the desire by the populace to do what is right in God’s eyes, even to the point of death, is what the Greeks faced, although there were many who turned from the faith. Eventually, God came to the aid of his people when they rebelled against this evil.

There are some who refuse to celebrate Hanukkah simply because it isn’t commanded in the Tanakh, even though they recognize it is meant to glorify God. That is their choice, and I suspect they don’t celebrate Purim or Simchat Torah, either, since neither of those holidays are commanded. And, again, I don’t want to originate a discussion about whether or not you should celebrate Hanukkah or Purim or Christmas or Easter, or whatever- frankly, if it isn’t commanded to be celebrated, then it is a personal choice.

Today we see a similar sort of evil in America: not that there is a king taking away our ritual worship and torturing people, but there is a growing societal conversion from morality and righteousness to selfishness and the condoning, actually more than that, the enthusiastic supporting of sinfulness.

Have you noticed that in family-oriented commercials now there is almost always a same-sex couple? Have you heard about how already there are some states that don’t just allow abortion, but now they are able to kill the child after it has been born if the abortion failed!

Hello, Molech- welcome back!

The recent pandemic has been turned into a political weapon, and instead of helping people cope with it, many of our country’s leaders are using it to shut down businesses and cause fear, with which they can control the populace.

There is no temple in Jerusalem suffering the abomination that causes desecration, but we can see it in our society! I won’t go off on a rampage here, and I don’t want to initiate any political battles, but it is clear to anyone who knows anything about the Lord, God that our society is not all that far away from what Antiochus was trying to do some 200 or so years before the Messiah came, which was to remove all God-fearing worship and lifestyle from the society.

Hanukkah is a joyous celebration of the miraculous overthrow by God-fearing people of a corrupted and evil government, and I have to wonder: couldn’t we use a Mattathias or a Judas Maccabee, today?

Thank you for being here; please subscribe, share these messages with everyone you know, and I always welcome your comments.

Until next time, L’hitraot and Shabbat Shalom!

How To Properly Interpret The Bible; Lesson 5- Concordance and Interlinear Bible

Leave a comment

In the last lesson we talked about extra-biblical tools to use when interpreting the Bible, and today we will continue on this line with two more of what I consider to be essential exegesis tools: a concordance and the Interlinear Bible set.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

The most well-known concordance is “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible”, which is a tremendously exacting study of every single word in the Bible and where to find every single occurrence of it. You also are given the Hebrew and Greek translation of the word.

And if nothing else, the tome is so heavy that using it will not only improve your understanding of the Bible, but it will tone your muscles, as well.

There are some who do not agree that Strong’s Concordance is the best one out there, and I am not going to argue one way or the other, because the focus of this course is to learn how to properly interpret the Bible, and as far as I am concerned, I don’t really care which concordance you want to use, just so long as you are using one.

For me, the concordance is most valuable when I am trying to find other places in the Bible where a certain word or phrase is used, to help make sure that what I believe it means is hermeneutically (remember that word?) validated by where it appears elsewhere in the Bible.

The other valuable extra-biblical exegesis tool I want to tell you about is the Interlinear Bible. Here is a picture of the one I use:

These volumes give you the English, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek translation of every single word, in the order they appear. That means that syntax and placement of the words are not going to be like any other translation you read because the word order is literally as it is printed.

For example, right from the start, we read in Genesis 1:1 that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, but when we look at the interlinear word-by-word translation it says in the beginning, created God the heavens and the earth. This is a small change, but it helps to better understand the issues that happen when translating from one language to another, especially when the placement of adjectives, adverbs, and syntax have different rules.

The Interlinear Bible series has the English translation with the Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Covenant writings and the English translation of the Greek for the New Covenant. Of course, there are no Hebrew New Covenant writings available, although you can find articles stating that the Gospel of Matthew was probably originally written in Hebrew. Perhaps one day we may find a viable copy of a Hebrew New Covenant letter or book, but as it is now, the interlinear can only give us the Greek to English translation for the B’rit Chadashah (New Covenant.)

As we finish our discussion about extra-biblical resources, let me mention that the two I have discussed above are not the only extra-biblical resources available. You can read the Apocrypha (found mostly only in Catholic Bibles) to enhance the narratives about biblical people and events, and the Talmud to get rabbinical commentary on the events in the Tanakh, as well as learning HaLacha, the Way to Walk, which is the Jewish lifestyle. You can even learn Jewish mythology. I use the Talmud because it has been composed by the great Rabbis of the past and I respect their learning and wisdom. That doesn’t mean I accept what they say or believe it all to be “gospel”, but it does help to know what they think when forming my own conclusions.

There are other resources, some of which people consider to be scripture, such as the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Judas, the Zohar (Kabbalist) and, let’s not forget, the New Covenant source document called the Codex Alexandrinus.

Let’s get real, people- anything out there which can help you better understand the language, usage, and culture of those who actually wrote the Bible is valuable in helping to properly interpret what you read, but I would also add this caveat: what God says to us is “scripture” and what people say is not. There is a difference between God directing Moses to write something down or giving a Prophet the words to say, and Shaul (Paul) writing a letter to one of his Gentile congregations with his instructions regarding how they should follow what God said.

Extra-biblical resources are written by people, not by God, so remember that as you use them.

To end this topic, remember also that the best guide to understanding the Bible is to ask God to show you, through the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) what he wants you to see in his word. There can be multiple messages within the same sentence or passage, and each could be correct for the person reading it. For example, there are prophecies that are considered dual, meaning they have an immediate future impact and a far-reaching future impact, as well. Two different meanings from the same passage and both are correct within the context of their separate timelines. So always be aware, always be open to being led by divine understanding, and never stop reading the Bible.

The more times you read it, the better your understanding will become.

In our next lesson, we will be discussing a totally different aspect of properly interpreting the Bible, so until then…

L’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!

How To Properly Interpret The Bible: Lesson 4- Chumash and Commentaries

Leave a comment

So far in this series, we have reviewed those tools that can be used by the reader when trying to interpret, for themselves, what is in the Bible. These tools are valuable, and we should always look for what God has for us, alone, when we read his word.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.
(PS: I have a new microphone so the sound levels will be good.)

But that doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t have a proper interpretation, or a message that he or she was given which can edify us. That is why there are some extra-biblical tools we should use, as well, when seeking out the meaning of God’s word.

One of my favorite books for studying the Torah is the Chumash. Here is the one I use, which is the Soncino edition:

“Chumash” is a form of the word חמשת ,which is Hebrew for the number 5, representing the first five books of the Bible, i.e. the Torah. This book has the Torah, the English translation, and a commentary on the passage, as well. There are also detailed commentaries at the end of each book of the Torah.

Besides the Torah readings (called the Parashah), it also has the Haftorah readings, which are sections from other parts of the Tanakh that are read after the Torah portion and used to enhance the Torah reading by showing how what we read was performed (or failed to be performed) in later history.

What I love most about the Chumash is that it is just so very Jewish. It is, if you ask me, essential for Gentiles who want to know what the Torah means to Jews to read this book, and use it constantly when they come to something in the New Covenant that refers back to the Torah so they can see what Yeshua or an Apostle was thinking about when they said what they did. I say this because the Messiah and his Apostles thought much closer to the way the commentator of the Chumash thought than any Gentile commentator ever could.

Other examples of commentaries are below:

These are commentaries I use when I want to verify or see what someone else thinks about a passage I might be wondering about; however, these are not the only ones out there. In fact, there are many, many different commentaries written by all types of people, so when you look for one, try to find one that as you peruse it (before buying, of course) you can see if it seems to be in line with your understanding.

By the way, I really recommend the commentary called “Parashot Drashim.” I happen to know the author really well and think he has a pretty good idea of what he is saying.

Commentaries are very useful tools for properly interpreting the Bible, but just as with any tool, you need to use the right tool for the job. What I mean is, if you want to become familiar with the “Jewish mindset”, make sure the commentary you get is a totally Jewish one, meaning not Messianic and certainly not written by a Gentile. You might be surprised, and maybe even a little dismayed, at the negative tone it might have when referencing Christian interpretations of the messianic passages.

On the other hand, when you want to know what the New Covenant is saying, then you need to get a commentary written by a Gentile because you won’t find any Jews who want to have anything to do with the New Covenant, unless it happens to be a Messianic Jew.

This covers today’s lesson, and next time we will discuss other types of extra-biblical resources you can use when you are trying to properly interpret the Bible.

Oh, yeah, one more thing…even though this is a teaching series, I welcome any comments or additions you feel you would like to submit regarding any of these lessons.

So, until next time, L’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!

How To Properly Interpret The Bible: Lesson 3- PaRDeS

Leave a comment

In the last lesson you learned that to properly interpret the Bible you need to read contextually so that the word makes sense within the sentence, the sentence within the paragraph, and so on. But that isn’t enough: you also need to use hermeneutics as you interpret what you are reading to ensure that whatever message you get is the same message throughout the rest of the Bible.

Today we will take this a step further and talk about the spiritual understanding of the words and passages we read.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

The Jewish system of biblical exegesis you will learn about to day is called PaRDeS: I have bold-printed specific letters because this is not a word, it is an acronym.

The “P” stands for the word P’shat. The P’shat is the literal, or plain language meaning of the words. It is, at best, a topographical understanding of the Bible and is sort of like the old saying:

What you see is what you get!

The “R” stands for the Remes. This is a deeper, more spiritual meaning of the word(s) we read. I will be giving an example of the difference between the P’shat and the Remes later in this lesson.

The “D” represents the Drash (sometimes called a Derash). A drash is a story with a spiritually moral ending. When people refer to the lessons of Yeshua they call them parables, but they are, in essence, a drash.

Finally, the “S” represents the Sod. This is a mystical understanding, the kind revealed through a revelation or vision.

When we read in the Gospels how people said that Yeshua taught and spoke differently from anyone else they had ever heard, that he talked as a man with authority, it was because all they had been taught by the Pharisees and Scribes was the plain language of the Torah, the P’shat. Yeshua took the people one step deeper into God’s word, which is why they were so astounded at his understanding and interpretation.

The best example I have found, which I use often, to demonstrate the difference between the P’shat and the Remes is the Sermon on the Mount.

When teaching about adultery and murder, Yeshua would begin with “You have heard it said…” and follow up with “…but I tell you…”; in this way he showed the difference between the P’shat and the Remes.

He told them that they shouldn’t murder (P’shat), but then he taught that if you so much as hate in your heart, that is the same as murder (Remes).

He also said we are told not to commit adultery (P’shat), but that if we lustfully look at another, we have already committed adultery (Remes).

Yeshua showed us the spiritual understanding of the literal words, i.e., physically hating someone is spiritual murder, and lusting after someone, even if not acted upon, is spiritual adultery. This is what was so impressive to the people, who had never been given the deeper revelation of God’s word.

The parables (drashim) Yeshua told were stories that had a spiritual moral, but the people didn’t understand because they had only been taught to listen to the words, the P’shat, and were unable to grasp the Remes of his messages. I believe the reason Yeshua often said that those who have ears should listen, and those with eyes should see is that he was trying to tell them to listen with their spirit.

The Sod is something that I really find hard to describe, as it is mystical and, as such, a difficult subject to grasp. Perhaps good examples are Daniel understanding the writing on the wall and interpreting the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, or Joseph interpreting the dreams that Pharaoh had. These were visions that were indecipherable from a literal view, but on a mystical level were understood to be prophecies about events that would happen in the real world.

There is a “catch”, however, with regard to using the Remes (and Sod) when you are interpreting the Bible: you need to have spiritual eyes to see spiritual things, and (I believe) the only way to get spiritual eyes is to see through the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit. When we read the Bible we will be shown the Remes by the Ruach, but if we don’t have the Ruach, we have no better chance of seeing God’s spiritual messages than color-blind people have when taking one of those “what number do you see” tests you get when applying for a driver’s license.

Maybe this is why so many people with biblical knowledge have so little understanding of what they “know”.

That’s it for today’s lesson. You now know you must read the Bible for yourself and how to use Circles of Context and Hermeneutics so you can properly interpret the meaning of the words you read. You also now know there is a deeper, spiritual meaning to the written words and to ask the Ruach HaKodesh to show it to you.

In the next lesson we will talk about extra-biblical resources available to further help you properly interpret the Bible.

Until next time, L’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!

Lesson 2- Circles of Context and Hermeneutics

Leave a comment

Have you ever thrown a pebble into a quiet pool of water? The waves emanate from where the pebble entered the water, outwards in concentric circles until the wave dissipates into the pond.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

When we read a passage in the Bible, we need to remember that there is no such thing as a single thought, or a single word, which represents the entire message God has for us. Like the pebble, the word is part of the sentence, which is part of the paragraph, which is part of the chapter, which is part of the book, which is part of the entire Bible.

The meaning emanates from the word all the way out until it is understood within the context of the entire Bible, which brings us to another tool for proper interpretation called Hermeneutics.

OK, so why the big word? I mean, I had enough trouble trying to remember what exegesis means, so who’s this Herman guy?

Let me give you a very simple explanation of what hermeneutics is, with regard to interpretation of the Bible: it means that whatever we read, wherever we read it, the meaning should be the same as we read in other messages or thoughts or lessons within the rest of the Bible.

For example, we read in Genesis that we should not eat the blood, and several times again in Leviticus, and again in Deuteronomy, in Ezekiel, in Acts, in Hebrews, in John, and even in Revelation. The one message is the same, throughout the Bible. So, if we were to have someone tell us that a particular passage says we can eat the blood, it would not be correct because it isn’t hermeneutically confirmed.

Let’s get back to Circles of Context.

Hebrew is a consonantal language, which doesn’t mean it originated in Europe- it means it is composed solely of consonants, with no vowels. Of course, there are vowel sounds used when we pronounce the words, but these are not found in the original Hebrew in the Torah. The Masoretes developed a system of vowel identification, called Masoretic Text or Cantillation Marks, between the 6th and 10th Centuries in order to secure a standard pronunciation of the Hebrew in the Torah. This was to help those who did not have an advanced ability to read Hebrew properly pronounce the words, thereby being able to interpret their meaning correctly, as well.

As an example, let’s take the two letters, G and D…does it stand for God? Maybe it means the word good? Is it Gad? Is it Aged? Is it Goad? Is it Egad!

The only way to properly understand the meaning of these two letters is to see how they make sense within the sentence (first circle), then to look at that sentence within the paragraph (second circle), and so on.

Circles of Context also applies to the author and the audience. For example, in the letter to the Hebrews the author is writing to Jews, but in the letter to the Colossians, the author is writing to a congregation of (mostly, if not all) converted pagans who are not that familiar with either Jewish law or lifestyle.

One letter is written to those who know how to understand Jewish logic and the other is written to ex-pagans who probably never talked to a Jew, except to give him or her orders and have no real understanding of Jewish logic.

What the heck is “Jewish Logic“? It’s my own term, and it describes how a Jewish person will present an argument, which is that he will tell you everything it isn’t before he tells you what it is. The trouble with this, as with the letters Shaul (Paul) wrote to the Gentile congregations he formed, is that he first proposed arguments against following Torah until he, eventually, showed how those very same arguments were wrong. The letter to the Romans is a great example; over the centuries it has been used as a polemic against the Torah, justifying that Believers in Messiah do not have to follow the Torah, but he wrote it as an apologetic to confirm the importance of Believers in Messiah to continue to follow the Torah.

The wrongful interpretation is not justified, either by proper use of the Circles of Context within the letter, or hermeneutically by comparing it with the rest of the New Covenant writings, especially the Gospels, or the Old Covenant.

Many people believe that Shaul stopped going to Jewish temples early in his ministry, but when we read all of the New Covenant Epistles, we can see throughout them the constant references to how Shaul did go to the Temples first. This is how hermeneutics helps us to understand the Bible correctly- Shaul never stopped living a Jewish lifestyle or being a Pharisee- he NEVER converted to anything and always went to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. And that is hermeneutically confirmed by the prophecies in the Book of Isaiah, which state the Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles.

To properly interpret the Bible, we need to look at each word within the sentence, the sentence within the paragraph, all the way out until we take into account the entire Bible, as well as remembering who wrote what to whom. When Moses and the Prophets wrote and spoke to the Jewish population, the laws and the lifestyle were known, but when Shaul and other Disciples wrote to the new Believers who were Gentiles, they had to change their way of writing to (pardon the expression) “dumb down” the message and the interpretation so that these converting pagans wouldn’t have too much forced on them at one time.

When you read Galatians you have to remember this was written to new Believers who were Gentile, but being told by the Jewish Believers they had to convert to Judaism, completely, overnight! That’s why Shaul was so mad at those “Judaizers”: he knew that much of a paradigm shift of lifestyle and worship would cause more to apostatize than to convert. By using Circles of Context and Hermeneutics, we can see the true meaning of what Shaul was saying to the Galatians.

Todays lesson was to explain Circles of Context and Hermeneutics and show how they are essential tools to help you better understand and properly interpret what you read in the Bible.

Next time we will talk about another tool of biblical exegesis (there’s that word again!) called PaRDeS.

Until then, L’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!

How To Properly Interpret the Bible, Lesson 1: Read the Book, Yourself

Leave a comment

That’s right. How can anyone really know what is in the Bible if they have never read it?

(I am having issues with my webcam so there won’t be a video today)

And I don’t mean to go buy one of those “Read a Bible Passage a Day” calendars. That’s like telling someone you are bringing a cake to their party and showing up with eggs, flour, salt, and some water. It may be what is in a cake, but it ain’t the same thing.

Maybe you’re thinking, “But Steve, I hear the Rabbi or Priest or Minister tell me what is in there every time I attend services.”

No, you don’t.

What you hear is what that person thinks the Bible is saying, and most likely because that is what he or she was taught it means, from people who were taught, from people who were taught, from…well, you get the idea.

Christianity has been teaching the same stuff for millennia, and they have never gotten most of it right. Why do you think there are so many different Christian religions? If they had it right, they wouldn’t have so many followers think it should be something else. In truth, if they had it right, they would be Jews, but now we’re getting way off-topic.

If you ask me, most of the religious leaders are doing nothing more than parroting their teachers. “Parroting” means repeating what you have been told without understand what you are saying, and that is what you learn when the only thing you learn about the Bible is what others tell you.

Do you know who Tarzan of the Apes is? Do you agree with me (and you should) that Johnny Weissmuller was the best Tarzan portrayer, ever? And that Tarzan lived in a treehouse, spoke English worse than Tonto, and had an adopted son named Boy?

The truth is quite different: I have read the entire series of Tarzan books (there are 27 of them) and Tarzan was fluent in French (his first human language), English, and some African dialects, as well as being able to converse with animals. His son was not called “Boy” but had a name, Korak. And they lived in a large plantation deep in the jungle, protected by a fierce warrior tribe of Africans who were Tarzan’s friends.

Now ain’t that a kick in the tuchas! You thought you knew about Tarzan, but I’ll bet very few of you did. So, do you think maybe, just maybe, there might be more to learn from the Bible than what you have been told or seen on TV?

You bet there is! And you will never know what is in there until you read it for yourself. If you don’t read the Bible, it is possible you are being taught an improper understanding of God’s word and you need to understand this- you will be held accountable for what you have learned, whether it is right or wrong.

When you get a new job, you read the Employee Handbook (if you’re smart) so you know what is expected of you and to stay out of trouble. When you get a new power tool, you read the instructions so you know how to use it without hurting yourself. When you have a new medication, you read the warning label so you know what to be aware of if you have a bad reaction. You read these instructions to ensure you are safe while alive, so why wouldn’t you read the instructions for how to be safe for all eternity?

One of the most wonderful things about the Bible is that no matter how many times you read it, there is always something new in there for you. When we get to a later lesson about the Jewish exegesis system called PaRDeS, you will see that underneath the written word is a spiritual message, and often you will not understand or comprehend that message when reading the words. But then, many readings later, you suddenly have an epiphany and say to yourself, “WOW! So that’s what it means…how come I didn’t see that before?”

When this happens to me, and it has many times over the past two decades or so I have been reading the Bible, I figure the reason I didn’t see it before was simply that I wasn’t ready for it. There is a certain level of spiritual maturity at which we all have to be in order to grasp the deeper meaning of the words we read, whether in the Bible or even in an Employee Handbook. There is a lot to be “read between the lines”, but until you have had enough exposure to the lines, you won’t be able to see what is between them.

I know many people don’t read the Bible because they tell themselves they don’t have the time or they can’t deal with all the “begots” and “begets” or the tough language. Well, don’t use a King James Version (I would never recommend that version, anyway, but that’s for a different time); use an NIV or CJB or some other version of the Bible written in easy to understand language.

As for not having the time, do what I do: I keep my Bible in the bathroom. Yes, that’s right- it is on the back of the toilet tank in a little basket with other reading material. I keep it there because that is the one place I know I will be spending 5-10 minutes, every day, with no one disturbing me. I read a chapter or two each day, and if you follow my example, you will be surprised how quickly you go through the book.

It makes me feel a little closer to God, knowing that he is on his throne and here I am, on mine.

And, one last thing: the Bible is from the first line of Genesis to the very last line of Revelation: it is one book, about one God, who choose one people to bring his instructions for how to worship him and treat each other to the world; it also tells of the Messiah he sent to help us to be forgiven of our sins so that we can be with God throughout eternity when this life is over. Don’t skimp on what you read, even the boring parts (and yes, there are some pretty boring sections but you have to muddle through them) because you never know what God will reveal to you, and to you, alone.

I believe there is something for everyone in the Bible that is uniquely for them, and God is just waiting for you to come to that point in your spiritual growth when he can show it to you. But you will never get there if you do not read the book.

Reading the Bible is not just part of being able to properly interpret it, it is the very keystone of interpretation. Without reading the Bible, you will never really know what is in there.

In our next lesson, we will begin learning about some different methods of Bible exegesis.

Until then, L’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!