The Pronunciation of the Name
March 11th, 2010 by Guest Author
This post below is from one of our frequent visitors Jaco. It is an article by Nehemia Gordon.
One of the effects of the ban on the name is that the exact pronunciation has become obscured. For nearly a thousand years the name was not used in daily worship and today we are faced with the question of how to pronounce it. Some of the better-known suggestions are Yahweh and Jehovah. But why the confusion and what is the truepronunciation of the name? The problem with the pronunciation of the name stems from the fact that the Hebrew language records vowels and consonants with two separate and distinct sets of symbols. The consonants are written as letters and the vowels as dots and dashes. When it comes to the name it is widely believed that the vowels were systematically replaced with the vowels of the word Adonai (Lord). So modern scholars deliberately ignore the vowels of YHVH which are actually written in the Hebrew text of Scripture and attempt to reconstruct what the “original” vowels were based on all kinds of external arguments and speculations. As a result, scholars arrive at different conclusions as to how the name was originally pronounced. One of the most popular theories is that the name was pronounced Yahweh and there is a virtual scholarly consensus concerning this name. However, this consensus is not based on decisive proof. The Anchor Bible Dictionary explains: “The pronunciation of yhwh as Yahweh is a scholarly guess.” a If “Yahweh” is a wild guess, what do we really know about how the name was pronounced? And what of the argument that the vowels of YHVH in the Hebrew text are really the vowels of Adonai as scholars universally claim? Contrary to popular belief the name YHVH itself has not been suppressed from the written text of Scripture. In fact, the consonants of the name YHVH appear some 6828 times in the Hebrew text of Scripture. But what of the vowels? Are they really the vowels of Adonai?
To understand this problem we must consider an ancient Hebrew scribal practice called Kere-Qetiv, “the read (Qere) and the written (Ketiv)”.
a “Yahweh”, Anchor Bible Dictionary, D.N. Freedman, et al, (eds.), New York 1992, vol. 6, p.1011
Qere-Ketiv occurs when a certain word is written in Scripture one way (Ketiv), but a note in the margin of the biblical text indicates that it is to be read as if it were written another way (Qere). Apparently, many of the Qere-Ketivs were formed when the Temple scribes compared two or three ancient manuscripts of Scripture. The scribes found slight differences between the manuscripts and left one form of the word in the body of Scripture while the other they recorded in the margin. The significance of Qere-Ketiv for the question of the divine name is that the Ketiv, the form written in the body of Scripture, is always written with the vowels of the Qere, the way the word is read. The argument concerning the name is that YHVH has the consonants of the name but the vowels of Adonai and this is presented as fact in every introduction to Biblical Hebrew and every scholarly discussion of the name. There are two problems with this scholarly consensus. The first is that in all the other instances of Qere-Ketiv, the word which is read differently than the way it is written is marked by a circle in the biblical manuscripts. The circle refers the reader to a marginal note that says “read it such and such”. So in the instance of the name we would expect there to be a circle over the word YHVH with a marginal note instructing us “read it Adonai” But no such note exists! YHVH appears 6828 times in the Hebrew text of Scripture but it is never identified as a Qere-Ketiv by either a scribal circle or a marginal note. The second problem with the claim that YHVH has the vowels of Adonai is quite simplythat it does not! The vowels of Adonai are A-O-A (hataf patach – cholam – kamats). In contrast, the name YHVH is written with the vowels e—A (sheva – no vowel -kamats). The vowels of YHVH are clearly different from the vowels of Adonai! YHVH is written YeHVaH but with the vowels of Adonai it should have been Yahovah! How is it that the scholarly consensus missed this factual evidence? Up until recently printers of the text of Scripture have freely modified the name YHVH. In many printings of the Hebrew Scriptures YHVH is written with no vowels at all while in other printings it is in fact written as Yahovah with the vowels of Adonai. However, when we check the earliest complete manuscripts of Scripture we find that YHVH is written YeHVaH. This is how YHVH is written in the Ben Asher manuscripts (Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex b) which preserve the most accurate complete text of Scripture. In these photographs it is clear that the name YHVH is written repeatedly as YeHVaH and not with the vowels of Adonai as YaHoVaH.
b Leningrad Codex is also known as LB19a, and is now available as, The Leningrad Codex; A Facsimile Edition, D.N. Freedman (editor), Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1998.
Before considering the vowels of YeHVaH actually documented in the text of Scripture, we must briefly consider the scholarly consensus concerning Yahweh. As already mentioned, scholars disregarded the vowels of YHVH in the biblical manuscripts and look to outside sources to try and recover the original pronunciation of the name. The primary source for this reconstruction is the writings of Theodoret of Cyrus, a so-called Church Father who lived in the 5th Century CE. Theodoret writes concerning the nameYHVH: “The Samaritans call it IABE while the Jews AIA.” The form AIA (pronounced A-Yah) indicates that the Jews called God by the abbreviated form of His name Yah which appears numerous times throughout Scripture. The form Yah follows an ancient practice of taking the first and last letter of a word to express an abbreviation. So the first and last letters of YHVH produce the abbreviation Yah. But how did the Jews get AIA from Yah? One of the characteristics of late Hebrew is the increase of prosthetic Aleph. Prosthetic Aleph is an aleph added to the beginning of a word in order to ease pronunciation. The prosthetic Aleph existed in Biblical times and thus theforms *rba (four) and *tsba (finger) were pronounced arba and etsba even in the time of the Bible. But in post-biblical times prosthetic Aleph became rampant and could be added to almost any word. So AIA is simply Yah with a prosthetic Aleph added to the beginning of the word to ease pronunciation. Theodoret of Cyrus is telling us that the Jews of his day called God by the name A-Yah. By Theodoret’s time the pronunciation of the name was supposedly suppressed among Jews by the ban of Abba Saul. Because of this scholars give more weight to the pronunciation of the Samaritans reported by Theodoret. Theodoret says that the Samaritans pronounce the name YHVH as IABE (pronounced Ya-be). Now if we were to translate this directly back into Hebrew we would get something like Yabeh. This example highlights some of the problems with using Greek transcriptions to precisely reconstruct Hebrew pronunciation. First, we must observe that ancient Greek did not have an H sound in the middle of words. So the first H in YHVH, whatever the vowels attached to it, would be dropped by the Greek. Secondly, Greek did not have a W or a V sound. So the third letter of the divine name must also be dropped or distorted by the Greek. Finally the vowels of ancient Greek were much different than the Hebrew vowels system. Biblical Hebrew had 9 vowels which do not have exact correspondents vowels in Greek. So whatever Theodoret of Cyrus heard from the Samaritans, his mission of transcribing the name in Greek was hopeless. What of the form IABE? Most scholars claim that the B in IABE is a distortion of a Hebrew Vav and that the first He of YHVH dropped because Greek does not have a H sound in the middle of a word. As a result most scholars translate the Samaritan IABE back into Hebrew as Yahweh. This is the “scholarly guess” of which the Anchor Bible Dictionary spoke. The reason this pronunciation is given so much credence is that it is assumed that the Samaritans were not yet under the ban of the Rabbis and still remembered how to pronounce the name in the time of Theodoret. But is this the best explanation of the Samaritan IABE? It turns out that the ancient Samaritans called God Yafeh meaning, the beautiful one. Now in Samaritan Hebrew the letter Pe is often replaced by B. So what probably happened is the Samaritans told Theodoret that God is called Yafeh, “the beautiful one”, but in their corrupt pronunciation of Hebrew it came out as Yabe. This seems supported by the fact that the Samaritans did in fact adopt the ban on the name, perhaps even before the Jews. Instead of pronouncing the name YHVH the Samaritans call God shema. Now shema is usually understood as an Aramaic form of hashem meaning “the name”, but we cannot help but observe the similarity between the Samaritan shema and the pagan ashema, which according to 2Ki 17:30 was one of the gods worshipped by the Samaritans when they first came to the Land of Israel in the 8th century BCE. So already c.700 BCE the Samaritans called upon Ashema and not YHWH. The scholarly consensus adds a second proof to support the alleged Samaritan pronunciation of Yahweh/ IABE. They point out the connection between the name of YHVH and the root HYH, to be. This connection is explicitly made in Ex 3:13-14, where we read, “(13) And Moses said to God, Behold when I am coming to the children of Israel and say ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you’, and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’, what should I tell them? (14) And God said to Moses, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (I am that which I am), and He said, thus shall you say to the children of Israel, ‘Ehyeh has sent me to you’.” (Ex 3:13-14) So Moses asks YHWH what name he should give the Israelites when they asked about God. YHWH replies that Moses should say that he was sent by Ehyeh which is a verb from the root HYH, to be, meaning “I am”. Immediately after declaring Himself to be Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, YHVH further explains that His eternal name is YHVH: “(15) And God said further to Moses, thus shall you say to the Children of Israel: ‘YHWH the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob has sent me to you, this is my name forever, this is my mention for every generation’” (Ex 3:15) But how can YHVH be related to HYH, to be? In Hebrew the letters Vav and Yod are weak letters which are sometimes interchangeable with one another. For example, the word yeled (child) has a variant form valad in which the usual Yod is replaced with a Vav. We find a similar replacement in the root HYH to be. The present tense of the verb HYH, to be, is hoveh (Ecc 2:22) with the Yod being replaced with a Vav. This replacement seems to happen especially in names. So linguistically there is no problem with YHVH being derived from HYH to be. This is why YHVH presents Himself to Moses as Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (I am that which I am), which is a veiled allusion to His name YHVH presented in the following verse. It is a rule of biblical Hebrew that when a verb is incorporated into a name its vowels are freely modified. Indeed, it is the norm for verbs to be modified when incorporated into names. So the name YHVH could easily contain the verbal root HYH without this dictating its vowels. The attempt to force a grammatical verb-form on a name goes against the rules of the Hebrew language. We have seen that the scholarly consensus concerning Yahweh is really just a wild guess. At the same time we saw that the universally accepted “fact” that YHVH has the vowels of Adonai is factually untrue. The actual vocalization of the name YHVH in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts is YeHVaH. Clearly YeHVaH does not have the vowels of Adonai. But are these the actual vowels of the divine name? The first thing we may observe about the vowels of YeHVaH is that the vowel following the first H is missing. A fundamental rule of the Hebrew language is that a consonant in the middle of a word must be followed by either a vowel or a silent sheva. Now there are sometimes silent letters in the middle of a word that have no vowel or sheva. But this is never the case with an H in the middle of a word. In Biblical Hebrew, it is common for H to be silent at the end of a word, but there is no such thing as a silent H in the middle of a word. This means that by the rules of the Hebrew language the first H in YHVH must have some vowel. So what happened to this missing vowel? When the biblical scribes wanted to omit a word they would remove its vowels. The medieval reader knew that when he came across a word without vowels that this was a word that was not to be read. It is possible that the medieval scribes omitted the vowel in the first H of YeHVaH to prevent the readers from reading the name out loud. Another point worth noting is that in the Aleppo Codex, the most precise manuscript of the biblical text, the name YHVH gets the vowels Yehovih when it is juxtaposed to the word Adonai. It seems that the “i” (chiriq) in Yehovih is a reminder to the reader to read this word as Elohim (God), since reading it Adonai would result in Adonai twice in a row. However, this is not a genuine Qere-Ketiv in which the “written” form has all the vowels of the “read” form. This seems to be a unique scribal practice which consists of changing a single vowel in order to remind the reader how to read the name YHVH. Now when YHVH stands by itself, it has the vowels Yeh?vah, the solitary change to the vowels being that the vowel after H is dropped after the He. This prevents the reader from accidentally reading the name is it is written. In contrast, when YHVH stands next to Adonai the “a” (kamats) is changed to an “i” (chiriq) to remind the reader to read it Elohim. What is significant about the form Yehovih is that there is nothing to prevent the reader from accidentally reading the name Yehovih. This form of the name has a full set of vowels and can be read like any other word in the Hebrew language. Now, for some reason the “Masoretic” scribes who copied Scripture in the Middle Ages were concerned about their readers pronouncing the word Yeh?vah but not concerned at all about them accidentally pronouncing the name Yehovih. This must be connected to the ban on the name which the Masoretic scribes clearly accepted. The only reason the Masoretic scribes would have left the form Yehovih without dropping the vowel after the H is because they knew this was not the true pronunciation of the divine name. In contrast,when they saw Yeh?vah they knew this to be the true pronunciation of the name and therefore suppressed the middle vowel. But what is the missing middle vowel in Yehvah? Comparing the two forms Yeh?vah and Yehowih it appears that the missing vowel was “o” (cholam). This means that the Masoretic scribes knew the name to be Yehovah and suppressed its pronunciation by omitting the “o”. This is confirmed by the fact that the scribes actually forgot to suppress the vowel “o” in a number of instances. The way scribes copied ancient writings was to read the words either out loud or under their breath. The scribe sometimes made a mistake and wrote what he heard from his own lips, even if this differed from what he read with his eyes. In the case of the divine name the scribe knew that the word YHVH sounded like Yehovah and even though he was supposed to suppress the vowel “o” he left it in, in a few dozen instances. In the LenB19a Masoretic manuscript, the earliest complete Masoretic manuscript and the basis of renowned BHS edition c , the name is written Yehovah 50 times out of a total of 6828. It is significant that no other vowel besides “o” was “accidentally” inserted into the divine name. There is other evidence that points to the missing vowel in Yeh?vah being “o”. Many Hebrew names incorporate part of the divine name as part of a compound name. For example, Yehoshua (Joshua) means “YHVH saves” while Yeshayahu (Isaiah) also means “YHVH saves”. We can see that the divine name when incorporated into other names is Yeho- when it appears at the beginning of a name and -yahu at the end of the name. Proponents of the name as Yahweh often cite the ending form -yahu as proof of their pronunciation. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the divine element -yahu is not consistent with the pronunciation Yahweh.
c BHS stands for Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, et al, DeutscheBibelgesellschaft Stuttgart 1967/77, 1983). To date BHS is the most precise printing of the Hebrew Scriptures only rarely deviating from the Leningrad Codex. The Leningrad Codex is also the basis for the Biblical Hebraica Leningradensia (edited A. Dotan, Hendrickson Publishers 2001) and is used in many other editions to fill in the missing portions of the Aleppo Codex (e.g. Keter Yerushalayim, edited Y. Ofer and M. Broyer, N. Ben-Zvi Printing Enterprises 2001).
Instead it might suggest such pronunciation as Yahuvah but not Yahweh. In Hebrew there is even less similarity between Yahweh and -yahu. Yahweh is spelled with a Hebrew vowel called chataf patach while -yahu has the vowel kamats. These are two entirely differently vowels which in ancient times were pronounced completely different. This is only a mistake that an English or German speaker could make! Secondly, in the name YHVH, the letters YHW- are actually at the beginning of the name not the end. So if we look to names such as Joshua/ Isaiah as our model of reconstructing the pronunciation of the divine name we must choose the pattern Yeho- which is at the beginning of these compound names, not the end. If we combine this piece of information with the form Yeh?vah documented in the biblical text we get the form Yehovah. It is worth noting that the English Jehovah is quite simply an Anglicized form of Yehovah. The main difference is that the English letter J has crept its way into the divine name. Of course, Hebrew does not have a J sound and the letter in Hebrew is Yod which is pronounced like English “Y”. Another difference is that in the Masoretic text the name has the accent on the end of the word. So the name is really pronounced Yehovah with the emphasis on “vah”. Pronouncing the name Yehovah with the emphasis on “ho” (as in English Jehovah) would quite simply be a mistake. One question we must consider is how the Masoretes, the medieval scribes who copied the text of Scripture and suppressed the “o” in Yehovah, could have known the true pronunciation of the name. After all, the ban on the name was supposedly in full force since the time of Abba Saul in the 2nd century CE. One of the things we know about the Masoretic scribes is that they were Karaites. We also know that there were two factions of Karaites, those that required the pronunciation of the name and those that forbade it. It is clear that the Masoretes belonged to the group that forbade the pronunciation of the name and this was why they suppressed the middle vowel from Yehovah. At the same time they heard how the other Karaites pronounced the name so they knew how it was properly pronounced. The 10th century Karaite sage Kirkisani reports that the Karaites who pronounced the name were based in Persia (Khorasan). Persia had been a major Jewish center ever since the 10 Tribes were exiled to the “cities of Media” (2Ki 17:6) and remained so up until the Mongol invasion in the 13th century. Because Persia was so far from the Rabbinical centers of Galilee and Babylonia, the Jews of Persia were protected from the Rabbinical innovations in the Mishnah and Talmud up until the 7th century CE. It was only when the Rabbis attempted to impose these innovations on the Jews of Persia in the 7th-8th centuries that the Karaite Movement rose up to ensure the preservation of the old ways. So it is not surprising that the Karaites of Persia preserved the correct pronunciation of the name from ancient times. It seems that the Masoretes suppressed the vowel “o” from the divine name to prevent their fellow Karaites from simply reading the name as it was written. Now when these Karaites read the Biblical text, they had to provide the vowel missing from the name themselves.
Jaco
Thanks for that timely, very informative article. This possibly means that we will never really know the correct pronunciation of the Divine Name, until Jesus’s return. Perhaps we may be privileged enough to actually hear it from Jesus’s lips?!
There is consolation in the fact that although we may be mispronouncing His name, He can see into our hearts, and know our intentions are pure.
Lots more articles like this one, please!
Jaco
Thank you ,that was very interesting
IMO this is more reason why the Greek Scriptures used Theos or Kurios instead of the divine name. If God wanted His “proper” name to be preserved, it would have been. But He is more concerned with us knowing His character and reputation, whether we call Him Lord, God, Father, or any other name.
Mark
It was preserved and still is within select groups of christians.
the discussion wasnt about it being preserved it was about the absence of it in so called original writings of the NT.
if it wasnt preserved would we be having a discussion about it?
Your grasping for straws
It has not been preserved with any consensus as to the pronunciation, which is what is being discussed here. And since it wasn’t clear how to pronounce it, it would not have been clear how to transliterate it into Greek letters. Since there is nothing to demand that YHVH be used rather than other words, the use of God and Lord (Theos and Kurios in Greek) would communicate to non-Hebrews just as well, if not better.
Mark
You are agruing from a point we dont know how to pronounce it when at the time of NT there was not this problem. Any jewish convert had the ability and the writers themselves even if they werent inspired would know how to pronounce it and transliterate to any language they were fimilar with.
Maybe the Greeks who translated the NT didnt know but this is still very doubtful.
Yes it is perserved to this very day and we have a pretty good idea how to pronounce it.
Jaco has presented more evidence for why it should be there then you have for why it isnt. you just have tradition to back you.
Glad all of you enjoyed it.
This article proceeds, IMO, very accurately in eliminating the possible pronunciation options. One theory almost thoroughly debunked is the “Adonay-YHWH superimposition” theory. I see, unfortunately, that the book
by Graeser, Lynn and Schoenheit still provide this inaccurate theory as a basis for the Jehovah/Yehowah pronunciation (or whichever pronunciation with 3 syllables).
The first time I saw the vocalised rendering of Yahweh in a book somewhere, namely, [jaχ'wei], I nearly fell of my chair!
I think Mr Gordon did a great job in presenting his case by also arguing from the “evasion of expression,” if I can call it that, in the forms Yeh?wah and Yehowih. By elimination, and by considering accidental vocalisation on the part of the scribe writing it “Yehowah,” the pronunciation of the name can be determined with much greater certainty.
Not only Nehemiah Gordon, but also scholars like Firpo Carr (Divine Name Controversy) and Gerard Gertroux (Divine Name Ye.Ho.WaH) have come to identical conclusions, although using diverse approaches in their analysis.
What the article does not address, though, are the ancient Greek transliterations of the Name. Granted, Greek has a grammatical system much more complex than Hebrew. Hebrew’s sound system, on the other hand, is more complex than Greek’s. Did that prevent the Greeks from transliterating difficult names? No ways. The Bible uses both YHWH and YH as stand-alone names. While in Greek YH was transliterated to IA or IE, the tetragrammaton had different transliterated forms, such as IAW, IEUW, IEU, IAOU.
Even if we consider the transliterated alleluia, we see what Greek initiative was used to have this word rendered in Greek, however linguistically corrupted.
I agree, great article indeed,
Jaco
I didn’t say they didn’t know how to pronounce it, I said it wasn’t clear, that is, there was no consensus. This is witnessed by the fact that there were several different variations used to transliterate it:
Theodoret writes concerning the nameYHVH: “The Samaritans call it IABE while the Jews AIA.”
“While in Greek YH was transliterated to IA or IE, the tetragrammaton had different transliterated forms, such as IAW, IEUW, IEU, IAOU.”
Also, it was a Hebrew word familiar to the Jews, but not as well known to Gentiles. For the purposes of reaching Gentiles, the words ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ would communicate just as well, if not better. There would have been no problem with this, since there is nothing in Scripture (OT or NT) to demand that YHVH be used rather than other words.
Psalm 68
4Sing to God, sing praises to His name;
Extol Him who rides on the clouds
By His name YAH,
And rejoice before Him.
Seems you just ignore this completely
“I didn’t say they didn’t know how to pronounce it, I said it wasn’t clear”
It was very clear to Jesus, you expect me to believe He used God and LORD over YAH.
It was very clear to all at the time of Jesus and since then amongst several christian groups.
“Also, it was a Hebrew word familiar to the Jews, but not as well known to Gentiles. For the purposes of reaching Gentiles, the words ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ would communicate just as well, if not better.”
Well no, that why the apostles went to the gentiles.
there is nothing wrong with Jesus calling God father, I do ,but to say his sayings didnt have Gods name in any of them is pure deception and the writings of Jesus’ sayings are not represented by the truth with God and Lord as Gods name.
But you keep on making excuses and explainations and i will keep on looking for the truth.
Mark
you ever wondered why “HALLELUYAH”! is the same in almost all languages.
Doesnt seem it was hard to transliterate YAH to almost all languages including greek and latin.
PRAISE YAH
Did you happen to notice that in that very Psalm, the name “God” (Hebrew Elohim) is used over and over? (At least once in nearly every verse, and more than once in some.) Also Adonai and El Shaddai appear in this Psalm. The fact that in one verse in one Psalm it says praise his name YAH in no way means we should praise Him by that name and no other. Other Psalms refer to praising God by His other names. Here are just a few:
1Ch 29:13 Now therefore, our God [Elohim], we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.
Ps 9:2 I will be glad and rejoice in thee: I will sing praise to thy name, O thou most High [Elyon].
Ps 44:8 In God [Elohim] we boast all the day long, and praise thy name for ever. Selah.
Jesus wasn’t writing in Greek.
No, I expect you to believe that he called God “Father” and made no issue of using any one name over another.
“All” who? Not to the non-Hebrew speaking Gentiles, which is why there were so many variations in the transliterations that were used in extra-Biblical writings.
And that’s also why the Greek words for God and Lord were used in the NT. God’s message was moving beyond just Israel with a view to reaching the whole world.
The MSS speak for themselves. He called God “Father” and “Abba” more than anything else.
I hope you find it.
Is there any here that believe the virgin birth is a salvation issue?
Mark C.,
All those examples you have given for God’s names are titles. YHVH (shortened YAH) is the expression of the person of God to his creation, and therefore given as his personal name. You do understand the difference, right?
I remember being told that the Hebrew language has no word or words for what we say in English, “I am.”
If this is true, is it because they would not say this because it is the name of God?
Ray,
there is a simple way to say “I am” in Hebrew, it is “ani hoo.” Which transliterated in English is literally “I he.” Hebrew does not have a word for “am.”
In reference to the divine name, God said to Moses, “eyeh asher eyeh” which is best translated to English as, “I will be that (which) I will be.” Moses then turns to the people of Israel and tells them their God is YHVH. Already mentioned in the article, it is interesting the similarity of YHYH (He will be, masc. sing.) to the name of God, YHVH (masc. sing.). All of these words stem from the Hebrew root, HYH (to be). In a simple sense Moses was just reiterating to the people of Israel what God said to him but in the second person. For example, if you said to me in Hebrew, “ani EYEH meuchar yoter la’misrad (I will be late to the office), and then you turn to your friend next to you to explain to them that I will be late, you would then say to your friend, “hu YHYH meuchar yoter la’misrad (he will be late to the office). Notice how the word changes from EYEH to YHYH when going form first person to second person. There is even a third person way, YHYU.
This similarity is easier to grasp if you are a Hebrew speaker as in the Hebrew language there is a 1,2,3 person grammatical way to express the language depending on gender and number.
What does all this mean? To summarize, Moses didn’t create God’s name, God had told Moses what to tell the people of Israel about his being. Moses then tells Israel YHVH, the only difference to YHVH and YHYH being the letter ‘vav.’ There are many theories as to the added vav and what it signifies in the name, but most agree that Moses was setting apart the verb for the sake of the remembrance of God’s declaration to his people.
As far as my personal feelings toward God’s name I don’t profess one pronunciation which is why you will never see me use Yaweh, Yehovah, Yehoah, ect. I do hold the opinion that the first part of the name is pronounced “Yeh” and not “Yah” even though there is a shortened form of God’s name as “Yah.” There is a Hebrew grammatical rule for this reason.
Psalm 68
4Sing to God, sing praises to His name;
Extol Him who rides on the clouds
By His name YAH,
And rejoice before Him.
Seems you just ignore this completely
“The fact that in one verse in one Psalm it says praise his name YAH in no way means we should praise Him by that name and no other.”
Mark
No there is 24 verses
“The term is used 24 times in the Hebrew Bible (mainly in the book of Psalms, e.g. 111-117, 145-150, where it starts and concludes a number of Psalms) and four times in Greek transliteration in the Christian Book of Revelation.
The word hallelujah occurring in Psalms is a Hebrew request for a congregation to join in praise. It can be translated as “Praise Yah, you people”, and is usually worded in English contexts as “Praise ye the Lord” or “Praise the Lord”. This is not a direct translation, as Yah represents the first two letters of YHWH, the Hebrew personal name for God, and not the title “lord”. ”
This must of escaped the greek translators because they didnt replace it that transliterated it which you claim was impossible.
Alleluia is a transliteration which has preserved how the Name of God was pronounced.
Halleluyah
PRAISE YAH
Bible Guide: Hallelujah, Alleluia
Top Home > Library > Religion & Spirituality > Bible GuideA cultic expression meaning “Praise Yah, i.e. “Praise the Lord”. It was probably used as a shout or prayer at a point of great joy or rejoicing. The phrase appears in 16 psalms beginning with 104:35 where it closes the hymn (also Ps 105; 106; 113; 115-17; 135; 146-150); while it serves as an introduction to Psalms 106; 111-13; 135; 146-150. Psalms 146-150 are known as the “Hallelujah Psalms”. The Greek and Latin versions do not translate the expression but simply transliterate it as a single word, “hallelouia” from which it passed into European languages. It also appears in the Book of Revelation in chapter 19.
Concordance
Ps 104:35; 105:45; 106:1,48; 111:1; 112:1; 113:1,19; 115:18; 116:19; 117:2; 135:1, 21; 146:1, 10; 147:1, 20; 148:1, 14; 149:1, 9; 150:1, 6. Rev 19:1-6
Besides Halleluyah there are many names that preserve the pronounciation of Gods name
Hebrew Names in the Bible Ending in “-yo”, “-yah”, or “-yahu-” (= “-iah” or “-jah” in KJV)
Abia (= Abijah)
Abiah (= Abijah)
Abijah, ‘Abiyah [“Yahweh is (my) father”; Strong’s #29]
Adaiah, `Adayah [“Yahweh has adorned Himself”; Strong’s #5718]
Adonijah, ‘Adoniyah [“My lord is Yahweh”; Strong’s #138]
Ahaziah, ‘Achazyah [“Yahweh holds”; Strong’s #274]
Ahiah (= Ahijah)
Ahijah, ‘Achiyah [“Brother of Yahweh”; Strong’s #281]
Amariah, ‘Amaryah [“Yahweh speaks/has said” or “Yah(u) has promised”; S’s #568]
Amaziah, ‘Amatsyah [“Yahweh is mighty”; Strong’s #558]
Anaiah, `Anayah [“Yahweh has answered”; Strong’s #6043]
Asahiah (= Asaiah)
Asaiah, `Asayah [“Made by Yahweh”; Strong’s #6222]
Athaiah, `Athayah [“Yahweh has helped”; Strong’s #6265]
Athaliah, `Athalyah [“Afflicted of Yahweh”; Strong’s #6271]
Azariah [“Yahweh is my help”; Strong’s #5838]
Azaziah, `Azazyahuw [“Yahweh is mighty”; Strong’s #5812]
Bedeiah [“Servant of Yahweh”; Strong’s #912 (prob. a short form of #5662)]
Benaiah [“Yahweh has built” or “Yahweh has built up”; Strong’s #1141]
Berachiah (= Berechiah)
Beraiah [“Yahweh has created”; Strong’s #1256]
Berechiah, Berekyah [“Yahweh blesses”; Strong’s #1296]
Bithiah, Bithyah [“Daughter of Yahweh”; Strong’s #1332]
Bukkiah, Buqqiyah [“Yahweh has emptied”; Strong’s #1232]
Conaniah (= Cononiah)
Cononiah, Kownanyahuw [“Yahweh has established”; Strong’s #3562]
Dalaiah (= Delaiah)
Delaiah [“Yahweh has drawn”; Strong’s #1806]
Eliah (= Elijah)
Elijah, ‘Eliyah [“My God is Yahweh” or “Yahweh is God”; Strong’s #452]
Gedaliah [“Yahweh is great”; Strong’s #1436]
Gemariah [“Yahweh has accomplished”; Strong’s #1587]
Habaiah, Chabayah [“Yahweh has hidden”; Strong’s #2252]
Habaziniah, Chabatstsanyah [“Light of Yahweh”; Strong’s #2262]
Hachaliah, Chakalyah [“Whom Yahweh enlightens”; Strong’s #2446]
Haggiah, Chaggiyah [“Festival of Yahweh”; Strong’s #2293]
Hananiah [“Yahweh has favored” or “Gift of Yahweh”; Strong’s #2068]
Harhaiah, Charhayah [“Fear of Yahweh”; Strong’s #2736]
Hasadiah, Chacadyah [“Yahweh has been faithful”; Strong’s #2619]
Hashabiah, Chashabyah [“Yahweh has considered”; Strong’s #2811]
Hashabniah [“Whom Yahweh regards”; Strong’s #2813]
Hazaiah, Chazayah [“Yahweh has seen”; Strong’s #2382]
Hezekiah, Hizqiyah [“Yahweh has made strong” or “Yahweh strengthens”; S’s #3169]
Hilkiah, Chilqiyah [“My portion is Yahweh”; Strong’s #2518]
Hodaiah [“Praise ye Yahweh”; Strong’s #1939]
Hodaviah, Howdavyah [“Praise ye Yahweh”; Strong’s #1938]
Hodijah, Howdiyah [“My majesty is Yahweh”; Strong’s #1941]
Hoshaiah, Howsha`yah [“Yahweh has saved”; Strong’s #1955]
Igdaliah [“Yahweh is great”; Strong’s # 3012]
Irijah, Yir’iyah [“Yahweh sees me”; Strong’s #3376]
Isaiah, Yesha’yahu [“Yahweh is salvation” or “Yahweh saves/has saved”; S’s #3470]
Ishiah [“Yahweh will lend”; Strong’s #3449]
Ishijah (= Ishiah)
Ismachiah, Yicmakyahuw [“Yahweh sustains”; Strong’s #3253]
Ishmaiah [“Yahweh will hear”; Strong’s #3460]
Ismaiah (= Ishmaiah)
Isshiah (= Ishiah)
Izrahiah [“Yahweh will shine”; Strong’s #3156]
Jaazaniah, Ya’azanyah [“Yahweh hears”; Strong’s #2970]
Jahaziah [“Yahweh views”; Strong’s #3167]
Jeberechiah [“Yahweh blesses”; Strong’s # 3000]
Jecamiah (= Jekamiah)
Jeconiah [“Yahweh will establish”; Strong’s #3204]
Jedaiah (a) [“Praised of Yahweh”; Strong’s # 3042 (#3034 + #3050)]
Jedaiah (b) [“Yahweh has known”; Strong’s # 3048 (#3045 + #3050)]
Jedidiah [“Beloved of Yahweh”; Strong’s #3041]
Jehdeiah [“Yahweh is unity”; Strong’s #3165]
Jehiah [“Yahweh lives”; Strong’s #3174]
Jehizkiah (= Hezikiah)
Jekamiah [“Yahweh raises”; Strong’s #3359]
Jeremiah, Yirmeyahu [“Whom Yahweh has appointed” or “Yahweh lifts up”; S’s #3414]
Jeriah [“Taught by Yahweh”; Strong’s #3404]
Jerijah (= Jeriah)
Jesaiah (= Isaiah)
Jeshaiah (= Isaiah)
Jeshohaiah [“Yahweh humbles”; Strong’s #3439]
Jesiah (= Ishiah)
Jezaniah [“Yahweh has listened”; Strong’s #3153]
Jeziah [“Yahweh sprinkles”; Strong’s #3150]
Jezrahiah (= Izrahiah)
Josiah, Y’ash-yahu [“Whom Yahweh heals” or “Yahweh supports”; Strong’s #2977]
Josibiah, Yowshibyah [“Yahweh causes to dwell”; Strong’s #3143]
Josiphiah [“Yahweh adds”; Strong’s #3131]
Kelaiah, Qelayah [“Yahweh has dishonoured”; Strong’s #7041]
Kolaiah, Qowlayah [“Voice of Yahweh”; Strong’s #6964]
Kushaiah, Quwshayahuw [“Bow of Yahweh”; Strong’s #6984]
Maaseiah, Ma`aseyah [“Work of Yahweh”; Strong’s #4641]
Maaziah, Ma`azyah [“Consolation of Yahweh”; Strong’s #4590]
Malchiah, Malkiyah [“My king is Yahweh”; Strong’s #4441]
Malchijah (= Malchiah)
Mattaniah, Mattanyah [“Gift of Yahweh”; Strong’s #4983]
Mattithiah, Mattithyah [“Gift of Yahweh”; Strong’s #4993]
Melchiah (= Malchiah)
Meshelemiah [“Who Yahweh repays”; Strong’s #4920]
Micaiah [“Who is like God”; Strong’s #4321]
Michah (= Micaiah)
Michaiah (= Micaiah)
Mikneiah, Miqneyahuw [“Possession of Yahweh”; Strong’s #4737]
Moriah, Moriyah [“Chosen by Yahweh” or “Seen of Yahweh”; Strong’s #4179]
Neariah, Ne`aryah [“Servant of Yahweh”; Strong’s #5294]
Nedabiah [“Whom Yahweh impels”; Strong’s #5072]
Nehemiah [“Yahweh comforts”or “Comforted by Yahweh”; Strong’s #5166]
Neriah, Neriyah [“Lamp of Yahweh”; Strong’s #5374; 1st occ.: Jer. 32:12]
Nethaniah [“Given of Yahweh”; Strong’s #5418]
Noadiah, Now`adyah [“Meeting with Yahweh”; Strong’s #5129]
Obadiah, Obadyah [“Servant of Yahweh” or “Worshiper of Yahweh”; Strong’s #5662]
Pedaiah [“Yahweh has ransomed”; Strong’s #6305]
Pekahiah [“Yahweh sees”; Strong’s #6494]
Pelaiah [“Yahweh does wonders”; Strong’s #6411]
Pelatiah [“Yahweh delivers”; Strong’s #6410]
Pethahiah [“Freed by Yahweh”; Strong’s #6611]
Ramiah, Ramyah [“Yahweh has loosened”; Strong’s #7422]
Reaia (= Reaiah)
Reaiah [“Yahweh has seen”; Strong’s #7211]
Rehabiah [“Yahweh has enlarged”; Strong’s #7345]
Reelaiah [“Bearer of Yahweh”; Strong’s #7480]
Rephaiah [“Healed of Yahweh”: Strong’s #7509]
Semachiah [“Yahweh has sustained”; Strong’s #5565]
Seraiah [“Yahweh is ruler”; Strong’s #8304]
Shamariah (= Shemariah)
Sheariah [“Valued by Yahweh”; Strong’s #8187]
Shebaniah [“Increased by Yahweh”; Strong’s #7645]
Shecaniah (=Shechaniah)
Shechaniah [“Dweller with Yahweh”; Strong’s #7935]
Shelemiah, Shelemyah [“Repaid by Yahweh”; Strong’s #8018]
Shemaiah [“Heard by Yahweh”; Strong’s #8098]
Shemariah [“Kept by Yahweh”; Strong’s #8114]
Shephatiah [“Yahweh has judged”; Strong’s #8203]
Sherebiah, Sherebyah [“Yahweh has scorched”; Strong’s #8274]
Tobadonijah [“My Lord Yahweh is good”; Strong’s #2899]
Tobiah [“Yahweh is good”; Strong’s #2900]
Tobijah (= Tobiah)
Uriah, Uriyah [“Yahweh is my light” or “Yahweh is my flame”; Strong’s #223]
Urijah (= Uriah)
Uzziah, `Uzziyah [“My strength is Yahweh”; Strong’s #5818]
Zebadiah [“Endowment of Yahweh”; Strong’s #2069]
Zechariah, Zecharyah [“Yahweh remembers” or “Remembrance of Yahweh”; S’s #2148]
Zedekiah, Tsidqiyah [“Yahweh is righteous” or “Justice of Yahweh”; Strong’s #6667]
Zephaniah, Tsephanyah [“Yahweh has treasured” or “Yahweh protects”; Strong’s #6846]
Zerahiah [“Yahweh has risen”; Strong’s #2228]
Zidkijah (= Zedekiah)
Robert,
I didn’t claim it was impossible. I claimed that there was not a consensus on how to transliterate it into Greek letters. And I was talking about YHVH, not YAH.
BTW, I do understand the difference between a name and a title, but there is still nowhere in the Bible that says God wants us to call Him by one name or title rather than another. All those names that include “YAH” don’t prove anything about God’s preference of name, since there are many names that include “EL” as well.
And the point is still that the use of those Hebrew names were fine for Hebrew-speaking people, but God has communicated His heart and His word to all nations in all languages. I still say that if it was an issue, Jesus would have taught people to use the name YHVH, but he told us to pray, “Our Father.”
You have no complete idea what Jesus taught, all you have is what the greek translators wanted you to know. If your going to replace Gods name with titles than of course you would remove any command to use Gods name.
this common sense deduction makes your claim baseless
If that is true then nobody has a complete idea what Jesus taught, and the entire Greek New Testament is useless. Thank God that is not the case.
“If that is true then nobody has a complete idea what Jesus taught, and the entire Greek New Testament is useless. Thank God that is not the case.”
No that doesnt mean that, It just means prove the NT by the OT.
again baseless
People tend to have paradigms they use to filter whatever it is they encounter. Those things can cause people to reject so much that is of God, or collect so much that is of the world.
As we continue in the Lord, our understanding will be refined, for he sifts out what is not of him. Those things that are not of him will pass away if we allow them to. We should expect our understanding to be refined by him. We should expect it to be tested as by fire.
Not only do we need a shaking at times so our filter can be cleaned but we also need a change in our filters.
It’s the chaff that he wants to get rid of, so what remains will be good for food. This can be quite a process but the Lord is patient.
Ray
Like I said before it is refreshing to see someone speaking from their heart. God’s Holy Spirit does speak to all of us. I really do enjoy reading your posts…
Good day, all
Mark, I hear you out, bro., but I’m not so sure about that.
There are a few things to remember here. Even the Jews were “proselytisers” for the worship of Yehowah, their God (cp. Mt. 23:15). Not only that, but after the Diaspora of the Jews from the 8th and 6th centuries B.C.E, Jewish practises, including the usage of the Divine Name, were taken along with them. As Nehemiah Gordon indicates above, the actual pronunciation of the name among the displaced Karaites was still in full use. Then, we have the synagogues in different countries where the sacred scrolls were read. These contained the Divine Name. We also have travellers and businessmen from Israel to the pagan lands, and vice versa, where contact with the Sacred Name could be made. The Name even appeared on coins! As attested by Church Fathers, the Name, “IAW” was the Name of the Hebrew God. (By that time, however, the Church was well underway in becoming a Greek-Roman rehash of the Church Jesus and Paul built, divorced from its Jewish roots)
The form Iael occurs in “The Books of Adam and Eve:”
So, the transcription of the Name could have been a problem initially to speakers of non-Semitic languages which do not possess the phonological equivalents in their language. Yet, as I’ve shown, ancient historians, Greek translators, as well as Church Fathers used several linguistic innovations to transcribe, not only the Name, but also other Hebrew words. Compared to “eli, eli, lama sabachtani,” Yehowah would have been no challenge at all (Mt. 27:46).
Now, in Acts 2 we read of the Pentecost event, where Jews from all over the [then known] world gathered and received holy spirit. Not only at Pentecost, but also at Peshach, would these Jews hear the Name, at least at the Temple, where the priest was allowed to utter the Name. We should also remember that the prohibition from uttering the name was not as universal as was previously thought. Also, to many of these proselytes, the utterance of the name would have been no challenge, since their linguistic system phonologically allowed the pronunciation thereof. Transcription and transliteration may have been a problem, but not an insurmountable one.
According to Gerard Gertoux, ancient Arabic texts have the name يهوه. Later Sufi texts (branch of Islamic mysticism) has the repetitive يه يه يه [yah, yah, yah], which they used in trance-inducing rituals.
So, the God of the Hebrews, the God of Jesus Christ, was no version of the ancient pagan gods. He was the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. The Church and subsequent offshoots thereof undoubtedly made Yehowah a unique national god of the particular sect. Granted, the nations who received the Jewish and Gospel message had their expressions for “GOD” in their linguistic and cognitive universe. Yehowah’s Name, however, would identify Him as the Only True God as His revelations and dealings with the nation of Israel would indicate.
Regards,
Jaco
Jaco
As Christrians, which “name” is the one we should be emphasizing and proclaiming to the world?
Xavier,
Heb. 3:1 “Consequently, holy brothers…consider the apostle [sh'liach] and high pries [qohen] whom we confess – Jesus Christ…”
This is a great setting concisely stated by the writer. This text indicates the actual means of salvation (High Priest and Agent, Jesus) as well as the One he is High Priest and Agent of, Yahweh God.
How do we offer the sacrifices to God through Jesus? Among other things,
Heb. 13:15 “Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which make public declaration to His name.”
At the current point of God’s Plan of the Ages, salvation cannot be attained by the one or the other. The Name of Jesus the Messiah, the one who came in Yahweh’s Name, each saves in some aspect of God’s plan. In fact, Y’shua means Yahweh is salvation, linking his saving work inseperably with Yahweh’s Name. Hence their purposeful unity (John 10:30)
There is no way that the one can go without the other (Php 2:11). Ultimately, as Western Gentiles who has embraced the Kingdom message, we are privileged to be included in a work by God who “turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Ac. 15:14)
So, in Jesus’ name I glorify the Name of Yahweh, the Ultimate Saviour (1 Tim 2:3)
And I know you’re also doing it, brother.
Jaco
Jaco
Then let us praise and reveal to the world the true name of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, for which he was purposed by the one and only God the Father to come into existence!
As you excently stated, “in Jesus name” we glorify the one Who alone is YHWH. Let us do this instead of debating and dissenting from like-minded Christians regarding the Divine Name!
“As you excently stated, “in Jesus name” we glorify the one Who alone is YHWH.”
Xavier
Yes we do that every time we use the real name of Jesus ( Yahshua) which was also replaced by greek translators.
To prove that point you only have to look no futher than where they translated Yahshua(Joshua,son of Nun) to the greekNT version of Jesus when through out the Greek LXX we find no practice.
So are you really glorifying God( Yah) or Jesus( Yahshua)
when you use the name JESUS.
the name Yahshua(Yah saves) was one of the ways the first followers were to proclaim Gods name and blessing to the whole earth.
Halleluyah( praise Yah)
For those who didnt know The name translated Jesus already had a transliteration within the Greek Lxx and whoever translated Jesus’s real name out of the NT made a huge mistake when they did this.
read verse 45
Acts 7
42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? 43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. 44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking [3] unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. 45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus(Right here should be Joshua) into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
robert
So if we do not stick to proper pronunciations and spelling checks we are not “really glorifying” the Father nor the Son?
See what I mean Jaco?
“So if we do not stick to proper pronunciations and spelling checks we are not “really glorifying” the Father nor the Son? ”
Xavier
First thing is i never made such a statement was just showing that the Greek copies of the NT show a purposely corruption to remove all hebrew background of Jesus and the name of God.
But can not with all certainty say that your statement above doesnt reflect the truth.
robert
Am I missing something here?
Xavier
This isnt about spelling or the exact pronounciation its about How the greek translators purposely replaced Gods real name and Jesus real Name to remove all hebrew background of both.
the name for Joshua and Jesus are the same in hebrew so how come they arent the same in greek.
I do know that the letter J and sound didnt not exist till about the 16th century so Yoshua would be a very good transliteration for the true name of Jesus
Jaco & robert
I am afraid your arguments undermine the whole of NT scripture. I mean, what else might have been “purposefully corrupted”?
Bad path to go down to. Hope you rethink your positions.
“I am afraid your arguments undermine the whole of NT scripture. I mean, what else might have been “purposefully corrupted”?”
Xavier
well that the way you see it, but the way i see it, the early church fathers undermined the whole NT when they purposely removed the name of God and Jesus and cause christianity to go down the path of destruction.
But as true christians we can restore the true meaning of the NT writers by proving using the Holy scriptures the apostles themselves used and commanded others to use to prove and reprove by
I read Acts 15:14 as it showed up in one of the replies above.
It tells of the reason God called to himself a people. To live for God’s name gives a person’s life real meaning. In doing so, we leave ourselves and go on to a heavenly place, for God’s name is spiritual and it is good.
This is so far a very good article but very long .
i am currently half way
http://tabilogalfonso.blogspot.com/
robert
Somehow I detect a contradiction in theological terms with your statement. The NT scriptures have been “undermined” yet it is your basis for “true christianity”??
How does that even work? How can we even know what’s truth or false if they have been “undermined” to begin with?
You make no sense friend.
Xavier
first thing is the NT writings were undermined, But by use of Holy scriptures(OT) we can know what and if something was corrupted.
there is absolutely no contradition, just your attempt to make me look stupid which didnt work
They are. The name is Iesous in Greek, for Joshua in the LXX and for Jesus in the NT, as well as the couple of NT verses that should have been translated Joshua. The question, if anything, should be why they aren’t the same in English. But the fact that they aren’t in no way proves a deliberate tampering, any more than translating Uzziah as Ozias or Hezekiah as Ezekias (Matt. 1:9-10). It’s simply a matter of translating the names.
Many Hebrew names are translated rather than directly transliterated. Consider the list of names in the genealogies, for example.
Changing doctrines and even the meanings of words are one issue, which there is no question that second and third century theologians did, as reflected in their writing. But to claim that they deliberately corrupted the NT to the point where we are no longer sure of the true words of our Lord, is a much bigger and more serious issue, but one for which there is not a shred of evidence. It would indeed undermine the entire NT. Jesus said that it was his words that were spirit and life, and the key to salvation.
If the NT were just a confirmation or a repetition of the OT, there would have been no need for God to give Paul the revelation he said he had gotten. There were a number of things that were “mysteries” that were hidden in the OT and not understood until they were revealed by Jesus, either directly to his disciples (Matt. 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10) or through Paul by revelation (Rom 16:25-27; I Cor. 15:51; Eph. 3:1-13; 6:19; Col. 1:24-28).
robert
Friend I am quoting you:
I don’t even have to “attempt” to make you “look stupid” or ignorant. Your doing a fine job of that all on your own friend.
Xavier,
While I agree that Robert’s arguments are less than sound, your comment was probably not the kindest way of putting it. Let’s remember to be courteous even when we disagree.
“But to claim that they deliberately corrupted the NT to the point where we are no longer sure of the true words of our Lord, is a much bigger and more serious issue, but one for which there is not a shred of evidence. It would indeed undermine the entire NT”
As usual you read in something thats not there.
I said
“the early church fathers undermined the whole NT when they purposely removed the name of God and Jesus and cause christianity to go down the path of destruction”
This doesnt say they changed all of it, IT SAYS THEY UNDERMINED ALL OF IT.
There is nothing that cant be proved by the OT even Paul, except your own meanings of Paul which you cant find anywhere in the OT or NT
Mark C.
“While I agree that Robert’s arguments are less than sound,”
Mark
This is just a bias opinion and a very expected one from you
“who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish? Isa 44.25″
Xavier
You better check to make sure this doesnt apply to you.
robert
You are spreading falsehoods and unsupported statements regarding Holy writ. Although we are called to oppose such things with “gentleness and respect”, you clearly are not willing to seek such dialogue and instead seek to attack my person.
Anyways, there is no point to continued dialogue with you.
I agree to disagree…adios.
Xavier
I have not attacked anyone, the matter of fact both of you did nothing but take pop shots at me. Funny thing it all happened at once but we give the shadow of doubt that it was planned
OK, guys. There is no longer any profit in continuing this. Let’s stop before it gets further out of hand.
Xavier
I am sorry, I do have alot of respect for you But we just disgree here
Hey, guys
It is quite clear that each of us have our own understanding of these and other matters. The purpose of my posting the article in the first place was not to cause dissention, and I apologise if that came across to be the case. I just think this was a very good article presenting the historical and linguistic evidence for the 3-syllabic form of the Name. It is, as far as I can see, presented in a very refreshing tone.
The article on Tolerance among Unitarians really left good impressions on me. We’re on this blog, “sticking our necks out,” so to speak, where anyone can engage us with the issues. Yes, many of them are mean-spirited, and we find ourselves ready with spiritual weapons to defend what we know is irrefutable truth. We should guard, though, against becoming “trigger happy” and see every other person as a potential enemy – even our dear brother. I know this can be difficult. I’ve been very harsh against these attackers myself. Mark, I can even remember being harsh with you, my brother, on the Christmas topic. That happens to people passionate for what they believe, although it doesn’t condone it.
So, theologically speaking, choosing Yahweh above Yehowah, probably doesn’t have that much implications. Linguistically, probably. A third aspect to consider is one’s own spirit – one’s conscience – in determining which form to use in personal prayer and public testimony. It is probably not as crucial as doctrinal issues, but may be included in healthy debate.
I think we all can work on a few things, and I encourage you all to prayerfully consider it – I definitely will: that is to learn to be able to disagree without becoming angry. In this, and the other thread, Hallowed be thy Name, I really tried to, presenting the facts and my own conclusions from them. Yes, some of us disagreed, but that’s OK. Other than working on these areas of the 4th, 8th, and 9th fruits of the spirit, let’s also encourage each other whenever we see the other one’s spirit is getting aroused.
I pray Yahweh’s blessing on all of you, in the Messiah’s Name,
Jaco
Jaco
Well intentions aside, what I took away from your article and the other posts pertaining to this subject is the simple fact that it leaves the NT scriptures [and yes, I am one of the few it seems from these posts to take them on the same level as that of the OT] as unreliable hence, unauthoritative.
We may personally agree on many of what we might consider the foundational aspects of our faith, but this sort of topic breaks it all down. In fact, does away with the whole Christian faith.
Ask yourself, how can we perceive the scriptures as divinely inspired and authoritative for our daily living, let alone our future hope?
Xavier,
I hear you out. I do not come to those conclusions, but I think it would be better if we leave it at that.
You are doing a great job in defending the faith here and on other blogs. Keep it up, brother.
Yahweh’s blessing to you,
Jaco
Philippians 4:6-8
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your gifts to God. And the PEACE of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.”
“Finally brothers, whatever is true, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – If anything is excellent or praiseworthy – Think about such things.”
I might have my doubts about some of the things that Paul said, but he did definately say some things that are good and full of wisdom.
At least from my perspective anywaze…
Jaco
Really? So when you argue that there has been a corruption of some sort when it comes to the “removal ofthe Divine Name” by later editors of the NT scriptures, in your mind it does not take anything away from them being in anyway authoritative? Not only specifically for you but anyone else?
Like I asked previously, if that is the case, what else might be corrupted?
Doubting Thomas
So do other founders of religion like the Buddah:
Or Muhammad…
Xavier
Jesus walked the earth for 30 years perfectly without the aid of the NT Using only the Law and Prophets till He received the Word in the Flesh
Acts 10
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) 37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
This doesnt say the Word was Jesus it says it was preached by Jesus.
There was only the Law and the Prophets before he received a greater understanding from the anointing of the Holy spirit yet he built his faith on it enough to be perfect by it.
Its not that i dont find the writings of the NT inspired and authoritive, I just dont take them on blind faith when i know there is a way to prove and reprove them. there was so much meaning lost in translation that it isnt hard to not understand the true meaning of whats wrote . Gods name and Jesus’ name provide the true meaning of many things in the NT that are nearly completely losted without them and has caused christianity to stumble out of the gate.
How else can an inspired NT cause such a division for the last 1700 years
Hi guys,
Jaco,
Great post. I enjoyed the discussions tremendously. Looking forward to more.
Xavier,
Brother, why so much hostility and defensiveness. Your discussions were great as I said to Jaco too. It seems though that you have not really heard Jaco in post #55. You persistantly say:
Well intentions aside, what I took away from your article and the other posts pertaining to this subject is the simple fact that it leaves the NT scriptures [and yes, I am one of the few it seems from these posts to take them on the same level as that of the OT] as unreliable hence, unauthoritative.
Intentions aside? Why put others’ intentions aside? Why not agree to disagree? It renders the discussion valueless eventually as it creates more of a battle ground than room for discussion. I agree that it would be better to leave it at that rather.
Your certainly are very set in your faith and that is fine. Sometimes keeping silent makes listeners think more than persisting or defending with words. Overly defending ones beliefs could lead others to think you are unsure of your beliefs yourself.
Even Christ has kept silent at times rather than speak up, has he not?
Therefore brothers let us not persist in speaking but rather in listening. Our great God sees our conviction, he hears our faith in our hearts. Let Yahweh’s spirit make our faith grow even stronger and let us do as Rom 12 : 3,4 says.
Be calm brother and let us stick to discussing matters at hand. Let it not loose it’s power.
Robert, Thomas
Great points! Keep up the faith. Let us not forget our first love.
Keep up the good works guys!
Yehowah’s blessings to you all.
Annie
Robert
I often see Lxx around this site. What is it?
Annie
Because, we may very well have good intentions but doesn’t neccesarily mean we are right. The sort of claims this debate awakens throws doubt on scripture itself. If this seems “hostile” or “defensive” on my side it is simply “defending the faith once received”. Nothing personal.
I guess Jesus and the apostles might have seen “unsure” to you then, since they defended the faith to death!
If your referring to when he was in front of the Sanhedrin I do not see how that applies. The man had finished his public ministry and had accepted his eventual passion and death at the hands of “wicked” people.
Thomas
that just means seventy in roman numerals for the number of Jews that translated the OT Books of Law to Greek, Can not really be given to the books of the prophets because there was no authority given to the seventy to do so, but it is still included as it was.
Robert
I have read that the biggest controversy over the OT is about the translation. I take it you prefer the Hebrew over the Greek…
Thomas
The hebrew has only a copying mistakes, the Greek has that plus translational mistakes,lack of hebrew understanding and meanings.
so yes since we still have the hebrew preserved i would use it over the greek anyday.
But still have to be careful with the english translations which are many and sometimes very different in areas
The Septuagint (abbreviated “LXX”, the Roman numeral for 70) is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BCE in Alexandria. It was begun by the third century BCE and completed before 132 BCE.
It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean Basin from the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE).
(From Wikipedia article)
Mark C.
Thanks for the link it was very interesting. I can see this is a very complex issue. No wonder why it is so controversial.
Robert
Just curious, How do you explain that Jesus and his followers appear to quote from the LXX?
Just curious, How do you explain that Jesus and his followers appear to quote from the LXX?
Thomas
very simple
The greek translators of the original hebrew NT used the LXX to help with translations and since they felt the LXX was more authoritive the the Hebrew OT they paralelled it to keep it that way
Robert
That makes sense to me. This story that 72 scholars translated the LXX over 72 days and that all the translations were identical does seem to be a bit hard to believe. At least from my perspective…
Thomas
it does but it was only the first 5 books not all, No one knows who translated the rest to greek just that it was done by around 100 BC
robert,
Hate to rain on your parade guys, but there’s no Hebrew NT. If you claim there was one, please provide proof (and no, when I say proof I don’t mean church fathers bed-time stories, I mean hard evidence). This claim that I see you making all the time has more to do with your theological position rather than with objective reality. That is because for you, if there’s nothing more than the Greek NT with which you are clearly unhappy, you are left with nothing, right?
Also, your claim that “The greek translators of the original hebrew NT used the LXX to help with translations” is just your invention, as long as you provide no proof to back it up. Have any proof?, or is it just something made up with the intent to explain away proof of the Greek origin of the NT?
John
Thank you for your opinion.
It has been noted.
John E
I am just a layman but I have read that some scholars believe that Mark was based on an earlier book of Mathew written in Hebrew. Also I’m just curious if you believe “Q” would have been written in Hebrew or Greek. I know there is no evidence one way or the other but it just seems to me that it would probably have been written in Hebrew…
Robert, you’re welcome. It wasn’t just an opinion, there were some questions there too.
Thomas, I don’t know what scholars are saying that Mark was based on Matthew, but I know that the majority of scholars are saying the opposite: Matthew copied from Mark, not the other way around, and that it was originally written in Greek. As I showed you previously, there are indications the writer of Matthew was NOT a Jew.
I don’t know what language was Q (if it ever existed) written in. But what I know is that there are quite a few Aramaic words in the Gospels. Mark quotes Jesus several times speaking Aramaic. We also know of the existence of Targums during the 1st century: Aramaic translations of the Hebrew OT, needed for the Jews who spoke no Hebrew anymore. Scholars seem to believe only the Jewish upper class was still using Hebrew when it came to religious and scriptural language.
“Robert, you’re welcome. It wasn’t just an opinion, there were some questions there too.”
John
i have been over this already and already know your response.
as i said your opinion is noted.
and my opinion has been clearly stated with reference why i have that opinion.
we can not agree
so again thank you for your opinion
Luke 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.
So it seems that many years after Jesus ministered the gospel, the fire of God, the good news that burns up the chaff, that which was commonly believed among them, was written down by hand as a declaration.
First being heard and spoken for many years, then much later, written down as a declaration of what was commonly and surely believed.
I suppose that’s one reason why we read of so many of the same kind of things, though Jesus did many more which are not written down of him. Many of the same things we told by different people
and what was commonly believed to be surely true was written by hand as a declaration of those things. So we have what we have
by the grace of God and by the writers doing so.
The Bible holds so much about the name of God that I believe often gets overlooked. The same with the name of Jesus. There’s so much to his name. By the word of God he is named. His name is the word of God.
Luke 12:44
Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
Jesus is the ruler over all that God has, for he is the faithful and wise steward, the servant of God. (see Isaiah 53 for example. It’s all about Jesus.)
here are a few more bedtime stories
Other “church fathers” have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul’s epistles. These “church fathers” claim that Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original, as the following quotes demonstrate:
Clement of Alexandria (150 – 212 C.E.)
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures,… the Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks.
(Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2
Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle.
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)
Jerome (382)
He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5)
For the full article please visit: http://www.focusonthekingdomagazine.com/2010/03/v1-n10-gospel-and-law.html
Xavier
while history is vague about 2nd temple Judaism and 1st century christianity it is certainly not that vague to support such views.
I have studied Armstrongism and it was certainly a legalistic cult that Used truths and twisted them to control people.
This doesnt mean that everything was totally false it just means they abused the truth on several subjects that caused a separation from the basic truths within alot of people out of shame in following a false prophet. Sometimes they choose to take the opposite position to separate themselves from that cult.
I am sorry but i have read way to much to follow Anthony Buzzard on this subject and a few others but still highly respect him in other areas
John E
You said, “I don’t know what scholars are saying Mark was based on Mathew, but I know the majority of scholars say the opposite.”
I just finished rereading a History book that I read many years ago and it said some scholars said this but it was quite clear that the majority of scholars said the opposite. The only reason I mention it is because of a link Robert sent me talking about the Ebionites and their writings.
From what I understand the rump of the leadership from the Jerusalem church moved to Egypt and later became known as the Ebionites (or poor ones). This link said that the Ebionites exclusively used a Hebrew form of Mathew and didn’t use any other gospels.
This has all got me to thinking that maybe Mathew was originally written in Hebrew and that this Hebrew version was maybe the first Gospel written. I know that when Constantine supposedly converted to Christianity one of the first things he did was to wipe out the Ebionite community and destroy all it’s writings.
Maybe one day they will discover the writings of the Ebionites buried in a cave somewhere and we will get to see this Hebrew version of Mathew that they exclusively used. Until then this is all just speculation on my part.
Robert sent me another link as well,
http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/knowles.html
After reading it my opinion changed about whether the gospels were first written in Hebrew. Now it appears (to me anywaze) to be very likely. Of course this is just my own personal opinion.
Regarding the Grace and Knowledge article, the fact that there are Hebrew idioms and syntax behind the Greek of the Gospels could mean that they were originally written in Hebrew, or it could mean that the writer who wrote was a Hebrew who thought like a Hebrew even though he was writing in Greek. It would have the same effect. Also, it has been pointed out elsewhere that the apostles may have been illiterate, in which case they would have dictated their compositions. If the person writing it wrote in Greek, they would be rendering the Hebrew idioms and syntax spoken by the one dictating. This is another possibility.
Nevertheless, there are witnesses of a Hebrew original for Matthew, and possibly Hebrews. But no such witness exists for the other books of the NT, so all we have is conjecture. Paul was a Hebrew who spoke Hebrew, but he was also a learned man who spoke Greek as well. He could have written his epistles in either language. Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and Jude were probably Hebrew or Aramaic speakers, but could have dictated their writings, or had them translated very soon afterward. The NT books other than Matthew and Hebrews may or may not have been written in Hebrew originally, but we have no MSS to prove it. It was the Greek that was circulated, copied, and preserved.
And since we have no Hebrew MSS, any ideas about what was changed from the Hebrew version to the Greek are impossible to prove. Therefore while there is evidence that the Divine Name was replaced by Kurios in the LXX, there is no such evidence for the NT. In addition, even if it were, there is absolutely no evidence that such changes in either the LXX or the NT were the result of a deliberate conspiracy to rid the texts of the Hebrew Divine Name and/or all things Jewish. There are other reasons for using Kurios that are much more likely.
“Regarding the Grace and Knowledge article, the fact that there are Hebrew idioms and syntax behind the Greek of the Gospels could mean that they were originally written in Hebrew, or it could mean that the writer who wrote was a Hebrew who thought like a Hebrew even though he was writing in Greek. It would have the same effect.”
Mark
this explaination does have a very remote possibility
“Also, it has been pointed out elsewhere that the apostles may have been illiterate, in which case they would have dictated their compositions. If the person writing it wrote in Greek, they would be rendering the Hebrew idioms and syntax spoken by the one dictating. This is another possibility.”
Maybe but still remote
“There are other reasons for using Kurios that are much more likely.”
Actually there is not but there is some less likely.
History gives us very good clues , so why ignore them
Mark C.
You said, “Also it was pointed out elsewhere, the Apostles may have been illiterate, in which case they would have dictated their compositions. If the person writing it wrote in Greek, they would be rendering the Hebrew idioms and syntax by the one dictating.”
That’s a good point. I had never thought of that, but if they were dictating their compositions in Hebrew wouldn’t they have first wrote it in Hebrew and then translated it into Greek later.
Like I said this is all just speculation on my part, but I am leaning strongly towards Robert point of view that the original was probably Hebrew. Robert’s point of view makes the most sense to me.
Not if they were illiterate and dictating to someone who was writing in Greek.
I agree. It’s all just speculation, and certainly not worth dividing over. As I said, the originals may or may not have been in Hebrew, but there is still no proof or much likelihood that the NT documents were deliberately changed with regard to the Divine Name.
Robert,
You are correct that these are a few more bedtime stories. But first things first: the authorship of Hebrews “was greatly disputed in the early church” – Metzger, The Canon of the NT (130). For example, Hyppolitus of Rome (150), Tertullian (he thinks Barnabas wrote it, 159), the latin church (203, 232), Origen (first believed it, then later changed his mind, like Augustin) disagreed.
Clement of Alexandria believed in the Pauline authorship because his teacher, Pantaenus, taught him so (134). So why would you believe Clement or Pantaenus? Do you know their sources? Do you know they are trustworthy? Cause it’s not like you believe all that Clement says, right? You do? Do you also trust his opinion when he says Plato(!) “was under the inspiration of God”, the Epicurean Metrodorus uttered certain words “divinely inspired”, and claims also inspiration from God for the epistles of Clement, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter? Or how about his heavy use of pagan Greek philosophy in his theology? This man clearly knows what he’s talking about isn’t it?
Eusebius also reports that its Pauline authorship was rejected by some, on the basis of a different literary style when compared to Paul’s letters. Eusebius also simply borrowed from Clement the idea that the epistle was first written in Hebrew (Metzger, 203)
Jerome also admits that many think it was written by Barnabas or Clement (236). Also, Jerome living more than 300 years later, had no first hand testimony about you what you quoted him, he simply repeated what he heard from others.
So, in conclusion, there’s not much to attest the Pauline authorship of the anonymous epistle to the Hebrews. The simple fact that it is called “to the Hebrews” does not mean it was written in Hebrew, as there were plenty of Jews from diaspora who spoke no Hebrew anymore, but just Greek (or others Aramaic). This reality made necessary for the Hebrew OT to be translated in Greek and Aramaic, these Jews spoke no Hebrew anymore – as is the case today in fact.
Proof that these are indeed bedtime stories are the style and vocabulary of Hebrews, different compared to Paul’s epistles. Paul also always identifies himself as the author of the epistle, but no such thing exists in Hebrews.
The Hebrew origin is also a bedtime story indeed. For example, Heb 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6, but only the Greek Septuagint has “but a body you prepared for me”, a phrase missing from the Hebrew text. The author was working with the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text, indicating it was written in Greek, not Hebrew.
Thomas,
I read a new book that said exactly the opposite. What is the title of your book and who wrote it?
What you described above is not something historians are saying today – or their majority. Anybody can write anything on the Internet.
I agree that everybody can think or believe what they want, but in the absence of any evidence, it’s just wishful thinking.
Who is this Brian Knowles guy? Is he a historian? A scholar? Not exactly: “Mr. Knowles, former managing editor of The Plain Truth, published by the Worldwide Church of God, makes his living as a writer.” He asserts that “In more recent times, an expanding circle of scholars has rejected this commonly believed notion as erroneous.” What “expanding circle of scholars”? He lists none. He quotes instead a guy called Lindsay, a seminary graduate, and propagates his ideas – his bad ideas to be more precise. This is not the stuff you are going to read in academic books, this is just amateur-ship masquerading as scholarship. He states that:
“The Greek syntax of the text he was using was not very good Greek. But, syntactically speaking, it was excellent Hebrew!”
The Greek syntax is just fine; it has Hebrew like expressions because the Septuagint did – because it was Hebrew speaking Jews who translated the Hebrew into Greek, so it’s just normal that the way they said things in Hebrew is reflected in their translation in Greek. The first Christians used the Septuagint heavily, and it influenced their writing. In other words Matthew does not say “this one begat that one” because he originally wrote in Hebrew, but because this is the Septuagint style.
If you are really interested in the subject, and do not seek to only assure yourself of what you already believe, I suggest you start reading books written by real scholars, real academics, not links on the Internet written by all kind of “experts”.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html
Scholars Who Support A Hebrew Original Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament)
Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament): ● Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety. ● D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety. ● E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Scriptures, Appendix 95. ● Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29. ● Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety. ● Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew. ● Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4. ● Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185. ● Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament), p. 14. ● Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety. ● Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Scriptures from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII. ● Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and The Origin of the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament), pp. 66, 68. ● Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata…in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156. ● Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92. ● Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel, (1927) p. 7. ● Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275. ● R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety. ● Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety. ● Dr. James Scott Trimm, The semitic Origin of the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament), entirety. ● Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety. ● F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.
You guys must have a lot of time on your hands
First thing you need to realize about me is i might believe some of all, all of some but not all of all unless i prove it with scriptures,history and common sense.
God given commom sense was given to man for a reason, just as he gave us his word.
Just because somebody has some false views at times in their life doesnt make their true views false that they also had at times. there is no reason for any of these to lie but there is several reasons why they might change their account like political pressure, threat of life, threat of losing their status which all 3 in history shows were very common during the early day of christianity.
Jerome testified existing MSS were perserved in a library and was in use by certain christians at his time but we dont have these MSS because that library was burned later by muslums.
We can take tesimomies of early church fathers but need to research why they mentioned because with several we see false doctrines taking form but things that have no motives for were just things they were acknowledging.
Marya is the Aramaic equivalent of YWHW, and is used often in the Peshitta New Testament. Maybe a careful study of Aramaic sources and usage could somehow retrieve an understanding of “the name” that is lost in the Greek N.T.
revised comment:
Marya is the Aramaic equivalent of YHWH, and is used often in the Peshitta New Testament. Peshitta sources reflect manuscripts that are as ancient as old Greek ms. Maybe a careful study of Aramaic sources and usage could somehow retrieve an understanding of “the name” that is lost in the Greek N.T.
John E (msg. 86)
The book was called “A history of Christianity.” by Paul Johnson it was first published in the 1970′s and from what I understand it is no longer in print. I first found it at the public library about 10-12 years ago. It was the first Christian History book that I have ever read and my first time reading it I was constantly using a dictionary to try to understand the religious terminology that was used.
It said that “some” scholars believed that Mark was based on an older Hebrew version of Mathew but it clearly agreed with you in saying that most scholars believe that Mark was the original gospel written. Why this caught my attention was that I had just recently read the link on the Ebionites that Robert had sent me and it had said that they exclusively used a ancient Hebrew version of Mathew.
I am not scholar or a historian but I try to be aware of the possibility that God is trying to tell me something. Therefore my speculations about this are based more on feelings than anything else. Like I said this is all just speculation on my part but I don’t see anything wrong with speculating. It is simply a possibility that I believe might be true.
I do agree that we have to be careful about reading things on the internet but from my experience information on the Ebionites is hard to come by. We know very little about what they believed or how they worshiped etc..
If you have any other information about the Ebionites or other early Jewish Christian groups I would be interested in reading about it. The fact that they were basically wiped off the face of the earth until recently makes their early beliefs and practices something of a fascination to me. It makes me wonder what knowledge was lost with them.
I don’t currently have the time to read any more history books. I agree with Mark that it would probably be better if I spent more time actually studying the bible itself. I am currently trying to look at the writings of Paul with a new perspective and after that I want to try to tackle the Old Testament again.
I sort of gave up on the OT many years ago (I only read it twice) because I found it so difficult to understand. Up until now I have been spending all my time reading the 3 Synoptics, 1st. Peter, James and Acts, as I believed that they seemed to be the most reliable and therefore I could have confidence in what I was reading in them.
But like Mark pointed out maybe I’m ignoring something else that God might want me to know that I haven’t yet discovered…
Thomas
here are a few articles with couple of different views
they seem to have some of the same beliefs we do but real hard to tell
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/Ebionites-legalistic.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/ebionites.html
http://www.ancientpaths.org/APJTnazandeb.html
Robert
Thanks for the links. I didn’t realize we knew so much about these early Jewish Christians. You certainly have given me a lot to think about…
Thomas
I have no idea exactly who they were because out of 10 articles i just read i got 5 different accounts but the ones i sent you at least used all of early church fathers quotes instead of using just the part that seemed to back their beliefs.
Like you said maybe someday something will get uncovered that sheds more light on who they were
I can’t speak for the others in this list, but I know for a fact that Bullinger and Lamsa do not “support a Hebrew Original for the NT.” Lamsa believed it was originally written in Aramaic, and translated the Peshitta text into English. The following is from http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/George%20Lamsa.htm –
As for E. W. Bullinger, the title and appendix were incorrect in that list. It’s Companion Bible, not “Companion Scriptures” and Appendix 94, not 95. It says that one of the reasons the NT was written in Koine Greek and not Classical Greek was that, “The writers were Heberws; and thus, while the language is Greek the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew. These idioms or Hebraisms are generally pointed out in the notes of The Companion Bible.”
He does not claim that there is any proof of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, but simply makes the statement that “If the Greek of the NT be regarded as an inspired translation from Hebrew or Aramaic originals, most of the various readings would be accounted for and understood.”
Thus, like several posters here, he allows for the possibility that it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally, but doesn’t make an issue of it, claiming that the translation into Greek was inspired. And since it was the Greek that was circulated, copied, and preserved, there was no indication in his mind of any deliberate corruption in the Greek NT.
Sean or maybe Mark
can you get my last post out of spam and delete others where i had to many links
Got it.
Thomas
here is another link.
Of all places to find an article on Ebionites this was on an animal rights website because they were vegetarians. seems very unbias because of this
http://www.lanternbooks.com/lantern%20pdf/akers.chapter2.pdf
Mark
it still wont let me post links
The other ones were just awaiting moderation, but this last one was marked as spam for some reason. I’m not sure why it’s giving you so much trouble with links. (The link in the latest one works though.)
Robert (msg. 99)
I just finished reading the link. It was very informative. Thanks…
Mark
thank you
Thomas
I have seen them mentioned many many times but never favorable. Most of the references misquoted early church fathers to make them out as judaizing christians who were aggressive. I am really not sure they were vegetarians, i think the fact they didnt follow the animal sacrafice for atonement it was just overstated. They were unitarians who didnt believe in the virgin birth and were Millennialist who believed the Kingdom of God was going to be on earth after 6000 years from Adam and after there would be a new heaven and earth here on earth with God dwelling amongst man. they called it Yahweh’s Day or the eighth day.
From the best i can tell they didnt follow the law of Moses other then what was in the 10 Commandments and Noahide law and were totally against the Oral laws of the Jews.
they were very peaceful christians.
they very well maybe true christianity
Thank you for having me look a little harder
Robert
It amazes me how close their beliefs are to mine even though I didn’t know what their beliefs were when I started studying the bible. I just found out about what most of their beliefs were through the links you sent me. It’s too bad the modern Ebionites seem to have lost the true understanding of Jesus’ teachings.
Before I found biblical Unitarianism I had found a modern Ebionite website. It said right on the website that the world would be a better place if all the Pauline Christians were killed or died or something like that. (They believe any Christian that is not an Ebionite is a Pauline Christian.)
They obviously have no comprehension of Jesus’ teachings about loving one another and even loving our enemies. I still can’t believe that a group calling itself Christian would want all Christians in the world to be dead except for them.
Of course I didn’t want to have anything to do with a group that had such blatant hatred right there on their website like that so I kept looking. I’m very glad I didn’t give up and kept looking because I eventually found you guys here…
Thomas
Yes I click on one site and they certainly werent very christian.
I am just no sure whether the Ebionites were that much against Paul writings or were just against the interpretations of Paul’s writings which were being formed by the early church fathers of Paulanity to separate christianity from Judaism.
It is also very strange that the beliefs i woke up with one morning a little over a year ago after 30 years of not reading the bible was that of early christians.
Been trying to prove my beliefs every since
Robert
You said, “I am just not sure whether the Ebionites were that much against Paul’s writings or were just against the interpretations of Paul’s writings which were being formed by the early church fathers of Paulanity to separate Christianity from Judaism.”
I’m not sure about that either. The way I see it Paul spent many years under the wing of Barnabas and since Barnabas actually knew Jesus and his teachings these things must have been passed on to Paul during this time. So I’m sure some of what Jesus said and taught can be found in Paul’s writings.
My problem is Paul’s teachings regarding the law (that is found nowhere else in the bible). In Romans 7:7-25 for example I find Paul seems to be contradicting himself in his teachings about the law.
He says in verse 12 “Still, the law and the commandments are holy and correct and good.” And verse 22 “With my whole heart I agree with the law of God.” But then just before this he said, 7:4 “You are now part of the body of Christ and are dead to the power of the law.”
When Jesus said, Mathew 5:19 “Therefore whoever relaxes even one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.”
He certainly isn’t saying we no longer have to follow the 10 commandments. Why would Jesus teach things that were not going to apply a within a very short time after teaching them (after Pentecost)?? Paul’s teachings in regards to the law don’t make much sense to me and seem to contradict what Jesus clearly says.
Thomas
At first i found Pauls writings very contradictory because of explainations the church used of what he was saying. But the verses you just mentioned caused me to dig alot deeper to understand who was being addressed and what was being addressed so that now i see nothing contradictory.
It doesnt take much imagination to change the meanings of several verses of Paul but after that you have to completely ignore the verses you just mentioned.
“In Romans 7:7-25 for example I find Paul seems to be contradicting himself in his teachings about the law.”
Thomas
I dont see any contradiction here. I see Paul describing the Uses of the Law of God.
The use for Salvation which it never really provided for Salvation because it convicted us which is what brought us to the Part of the Law that was for Salvation which was the sacraficial system that Jesus came to Fulfill( to become).
It was faith in that sacraficial system before and after Jesus that provided the means of Salvation and this is what message i get from Paul
Robert
I think I understand what you are saying. I’m going to reread chapter 7 looking at it from this new perspective.
Thomas
I think this will also help you with the understanding of all Paul’s writings.
I have to go to a wedding 4 hours north of here in Oklahoma and it supposed to snow.
so i might not respond till tomorrow.
Let’s remember that the blood of goats, heifers, and such were symbolic of the covenant that was to come.
Paul talks about this in the book of Hebrews.
David made reference to God not imputing sin to the man who was blessed by faith in God. Justification by faith in God was possible throughout time, though so many missed it and fell short of it. This also is mentioned in Hebrews.
Thanks Ray…
Robert
Chapter 7 does seem to make sense when I look at it that way. I hope you had a good time at the wedding…
Ray
Yes it has always been faith that has driven a person to be a child of God. And it took a lot of faith to believe the blood of animals washed away sin. Now its really takes faith to understand that the man Jesus has taken over that system.
Thomas
Yes it was a very nice wedding
I see where the conflicts started about Paul in the writings of early church fathers as they explained what they wanted Paul to be saying. Paul’s writing were and still are very easy to twist when you dont know who or what he was addressing. But alot of Paul’s statements are hard to twist so for the most part are simplely ignored. there is so much to learn from Paul and all other writers when we keep all things parallel to what Jesus taught
Here is a wonderful web page that deals with “JESUS, CHRISTIANS AND THE LAW” -
http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html
The only issue I have with the writer is a brief mention of God dying on the cross (he’s obviously Trinitarian). Other than that he gives a clear and concise exposition of Matthew 5:17-19.
Mark
that understanding shows the lack of research of the Jewish interpretation of law which Jesus, Paul and others fully understood and an influence of tradition.
the Jewish interpretation of law was not the Torah it was the interpretations found within the Oral laws of the Jews. I can see how people can be misguided without this knowledge because it changes the whole context of what the Pharisees and scribes believed. they felt there interpretations were superior to the Torah.
Ty for article because ones like this help me understand how people went off course with the early christians.
Mark C.
Thanks for the article it was very interesting and informative. I agree with it when it says we should walk in the spirit of the law not just the letter of the law. But the first step to walking in the spirit of the law is to first know what the law is. Once we know what the law is then we can begin to try to walk in the spirit of law.
That is why I look at the spirit of the 4th. commandment and understand that as long as people keep one day a week to refrain from their normal work and be close to God then they are fulfilling the spirit of the law about keeping the Sabbath. Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.”
The article kept referring to Luke 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John: since then the good new of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.” But it’s like the writer of the article completely ignores verse 17 which immediately follows verse 16 and to me was actually part of the same sentence.
“But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void.” (ESV) Jesus is emphasizing that when he fulfills the law that the law will not then become void. Robert’s explanation that Jesus came to fulfill the law regarding the rites (Law) of animal sacrifices (being the perfect lamb without sin or blemish) seems to make the most sense to me.
I still believe the 10 commandment, Noahs law (as spelled out by the council of Jerusalem) and the specific commands of Jesus still apply to us today. But we are not just expected to walk by the letter of the law but to go beyond that and walk by the spirit that is behind these laws and commandments.
At least that’s the way I see it anywaze. Like I said I don’t try to force my opinions on anyone and I can understand how many people might disagree with me. Especially since there is such a long Christian history going right back to some of the early church fathers of interpreting these things differently than Robert and I do.
Robert, the blood of animals could never wash away sin. If they could have, there would have been no need for a better offering.
Ray
I am sorry i thought you understood by your statement, but i will clarify my statement.
It wasnt the blood of animals that could wash away sins, It was Faith that the blood of animals could wash away sins that made the sacraficial system effective.
they sought it not through faith
I doubt they had faith in the blood of animals for the cleasning of sin, but rather, I trust they had faith in God who honored their obedience by faith, to his word which testified to the things of his kingdom which was and still is in heaven, where the faithful in Christ are seated.
Today, those of us (who have faith in God by him, and have become a part of his body) on this earth are seated in the heavenlies by Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6)
” If they could have, there would have been no need for a better offering.”
Ray
It wasnt just the need for a better offering , it was the need for a better sacraficial system to be able to OFFER salvation to all mankind. The old sacraficial system could only handle a select group, while the new could handle all that come to God.
Ray
those who had faith the blood of animals could wash away sin had faith that it was only by the power of God that it could do that, not because of the purety of the blood.
the same faith that was required for that can be Baptism in water can wash away sin when water is just water but done with Faith by the power of God it can wash away sins
Amen. Faith in Christ for salvation can go with a man who gets dipped in water. Faith in the call of God for repentance cleansed from sin. Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38.
Robert,
This is only partially true. Jesus spoke against the traditions and oral laws many times, but he also raised the Law itself to a new spiritual level. When he said, “You’ve heard it said, but I say to you…” two of the things he referred to were direct quotes from the Ten Commandments – thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not commit adultery. Jesus raised the whole Law to a new standard.
It wasn’t just the need for a better sacrificial system, either. God has provided the sacrifice to cleanse us from sin, but His desire is that we don’t sin in the first place, and that we demonstrate His love. The Law of Moses (including the Ten Commandments) could not do this.
________
Thomas,
I agree, it’s important to know what the Law said. But we still have to keep straight who it was addressed to. The Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath, are part of the Law given on Mt. Sinai, which Paul contrasts with the New Covenant in Galatians 3. It was addressed to Israel, and specifically given by God as a sign of the unique relationship He had with Israel. Just as the sacrifices and offerings and other aspects of the Law now have a spiritual fulfillment, the author of the article said, “we also see that ‘keeping the sabbath’ is not about mechanically refraining from all work one day a week, but about entering the rest of Christ (Matthew 11:28-30) as a Christian convert now, and finally to enter His ‘rest’ of Eternal Life at the end of our lives when our earthly ‘labours’ are complete (Hebrews 3:14-4:11).”
He didn’t ignore that aspect. He made a point of saying that rather than the Law becoming void, it is fulfilled. Also, the distinction of Jesus fulfilling the sacrificial laws but not the other parts of the Law is nowhere declared in the New Testament.
But if they apply to us today, no one could be righteous. Because according to Jesus, even if one were to keep all the other commandments, and still had lust in his heart, or evil thoughts about his brother, he is still guilty. People could keep the letter of the Law and still not be righteous according to this standard.
That’s what the author of that article meant when he said that the Law didn’t go far enough. One could have no gods before the True God, refrain from making idols or taking His name in vain, keep the Sabbath, honor his parents, and refrain from killing, committing adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting, and yet still not be pleasing in God’s sight. God desires us to have a heart of faith and love and compassion that goes beyond the letter of the Law. And He desires us to deal with the real root problems behind the commandments, rather than just following the letter and missing what’s really the issue. (“…Adultery is not the real problem, but, rather, the lust which leads to it is the problem…murder is not the real problem but the hatred which leads to the act.”)
“But if they apply to us today, no one could be righteous.”
Mark
that is the purpose of the gift of the Holy spirit to help us walk according to Gods laws.
We cant just take away Gods laws to make it easier to be righteous, we must love Gods ways whether we are capable of following them and then he will give us the ability to.
Jesus didnt change any laws , he just gave us a deeper understanding of them. He was able to do this because he himself was hosting the Holy spirit and we can to if our faith allows us to receive it.
Faith is the belief and love of GOD
Those who love GOD do his COMMANDMENTS
The purpose of the holy spirit is to help us walk according to God’s righteousness, which the Law could not do. That’s why Paul contrasted the law with the spirit.
We don’t take anything away. We follow the law of Christ which is God’s commandments to us.
He gave more than a deeper understanding. He raised the standard to a spiritual one.
But once again, WHICH commandments? It still comes back to recognizing that the Ten Commandments were addressed to Israel, but the commandments of Jesus relative to the New Covenant are addressed to us.
I remember how a man was stoned because he was gathering sticks on a sabbath day. If any Christian did that today his actions would be condemned by God. He would have to repent and hope to be saved by Jesus.
Today, if a man were brought to a prophet for doing such a thing and the prophet declared that the word of the Lord was to stone him, he would be a false prophet, one who was leading God’s people into sin, away from Christ and the new covenant.
Such a prophet would not be able to justify himself for such a thing before God. He would be a man in his sin before God and Christ Jesus.
“He raised the standard to a spiritual one.”
Mark
The standard was always spiritual but Israel wasnt seeking it spiritually as it was giving in the 10 Commandments they where seeking it materially as it was giving in mosaic law. they were not looking to the kingdom the prophets prophecied about which can only be obtained spiritually they were looking at the material possesion of the nation of Israel.
There were always people after the commandments who were righteous in them, but it wasnt thru perfection in them it was thru faith in the sacraficial system for atonement of sin.
Jesus gave no such laws, he was just a man who by living perfect to Gods commandments was the first to receive the Word in the Flesh thru the gift of GODS HOLY SPIRIT at his baptism. The Holy spirit gave him that better understanding and will give us the same.
Jesus glorified Gods Laws and so did all that received the gift of the Holy spirit. If Paul preached another Gospel than he was a false prophet, But I CAN SEE HE NEVER ONCE DID AS YOU SAY HE DID.
You need to do more research before you claim you understand Jesus or Paul or claim you understand what commandments are being spoke of.
The law had simply said “Thou shalt not kill” but Jesus went beyond that to address the root problem when he said that being angry without cause was as bad as murder. The law had simply said “Thou shalt not commit adultery” but Jesus went beyond that to address the root problem when he said that looking at a woman with lust was as bad as adultery.
It was through faith, but not just in the sacrificial system. It was faith in God’s calling of Israel, and their unique relationship with Him. It also pointed toward Christ and the kingdom.
Many things that the law had said, Jesus modified. “You’ve heard it said… BUT I SAY TO YOU…” He did not merely reiterate the law of Moses, but established a New Covenant. Paul set the Old Covenant of the letter in stark contrast to the New Covenant of the spirit. He said the Law was a temporary provision for Israel until Messiah came, but it could not change people’s hearts. That was not another Gospel, it was part of the same Kingdom Gospel that Jesus preached.
Mark
I am sorry to say the things you claim things mean i cant find support for anywhere in the bible.
who gave you these explainations, Is it a mystery or are there words written between the lines that only some can see.
There is way to much clear in the bible that would ever allow me to follow that plus so much other outside that also is way to clear.
Your other problem is you still dont understand what i am saying because you keep coming back to people claiming salvation comes from the works of the law where i havent seen anyone of lately claiming that.
first and foremost grace has to be offered by GOD for salvation to even exist.
second is Faith in God and His word.
there is nothing else that exist that will account someone for salvation.once you have been called to receive salvation you will then receive the Holy spirit to give you the knowledge how to be perfect in GODS LAWS. those who have been chosen and have accepted will follow the whole law because of their love for God and Gods laws.
I am not saying you have to be perfect in Gods law to be accounted for salvation but i am saying those who deny Gods laws will not be accounted for salvation.
Jesus gave no laws he just magnafied the ones God already gave,there were many before Jesus that magnafied them also.
God is the Lawgiver for salvation issues .Not Jesus and definately not PAUL
Mark C. (msg. 1240
You said, “I agree, it’s important to know what the law said. But we still have to keep it straight who it was addressed to.”
I agree with Robert that there is the spoken law of God, which he spoke in his own voice for everyone to hear and later wrote this spoken law (twice) onto the stone tablets and that were kept separate inside the ark, and then there is the rest of the law that was addressed to the Israelites alone and no one else and was not kept inside the ark or given special treatment.
I can see how you and others might disagree, but I don’t understand why there were 10 specific commandments first spoken by God, then written in stone, and then kept inside the ark when the rest of the laws were not?
You keep saying that this was just done to prove that the other laws also came from God and that they are all one and the same thing and there is no difference between them. It doesn’t seem logical to me that God would have made such a special effort to treat these 10 commandments so much differently from the other laws if they were in reality exactly the same and not special in any way.
Of course this is just an opinion that Robert and I share and people are free to disagree with us if they want.
Galations 3:5 “Does he who supplies the spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing by faith.”
We no longer have laws controlling every aspect of our lives but can have faith that the Holy Spirit will guide us in every minute detail in our daily lives. The vast majority of the law no longer applies to us just the 10 commandments and the law of Noah and the specific commands of Jesus which gives us general guidance towards where the spirit will then be able to guide us from.
I am not a Jewish Christian that says we must follow the entire law as laid out by Moses. You and I are actually very close in our beliefs. You say we have to know what the law is but then after that realize that it was not addressed to us. I believe that only a small part of the law is addressed to us.
I’m not trying to force my interpretation on you or anyone else. I’m just asking for the right to interpret it the way that seems the most logical to me.
You also said, “We also see that keeping the Sabbath is not about mechanically refraining from all work one day a week.”
How can you spend the day getting close to God and contemplating the things of God if you are engaged in your normal day to day business (or work)? Certainly your mind is going to get sidetracked into thinking about your normal work of the week and away from contemplating God and the things of God.
It is for our own good that we dedicate special time (a day a week) to contemplate God and the things of God and try to grow closer to him. Like Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man (for OUR good) and not man for the Sabbath.”
You also said, “The distinction of Jesus fulfilling the sacrificial law and not the other parts of the law is not declared in the New Testament.”
You are correct that this is not specifically declared but it does seem to be implied at least to me and to others like Robert.
You also said, “God desires us to have a heart of faith and love and compassion that goes beyond the letter of the Law. And he desires us to deal with the real root problems behind the commandments, rather than just following the letter and missing what’s really the issue.”
I agree. The 10 Commandments, the law of Noah, and the specific commandments of Jesus are just a starting point for us to embark from. A general guideline for us to follow. “It is the Holy Spirit” that will guide us from this point on through each and every event down to the most minute detail that comes up in our daily lives.
No set of laws could guide us in every possible situation. Having a heart of faith and love and compassion that goes beyond the letter of the law combined with the Holy Spirit will guide us no matter how complex our lives might seem to be.
Understanding the spirit that is behind the 10 commandments, the law of Noah, and the specific commandments of Jesus will come with spiritual maturity. Something that I am trying to work towards…
Thomas,
If you read Exodus 19 through 24, especially chapter 20, you see that the Lord spoke audibly to the children of Israel at first, but they couldn’t bear it, and said to Moses, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die” (Ex. 20:19). The Ten Commandments were the first things God spoke audibly to the entire congregation, but after that God still spoke to Moses, and there is nothing in the context to indicate that the laws He spoke after that were any less important or in any way separate from the Ten Commandments.
He went on to give several chapters of laws, and in chapter 24, it says that Moses told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. And then he wrote all the words of the LORD, and read them before the people, and they said, “All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.” Then he made sacrifices, sprinkled the blood on the people to ratify the covenant, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.”
Do you see anything in this whole section that indicates that the Ten Commandments were a separate law, or a separate covenant, from the entire law that Moses wrote down? Add to this the fact that other things Moses added later to the book, including what’s in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are said to be written in “the Book of the Law.” Also, there is no reference anywhere in the rest of the Old Testament, or the New, that speaks of the Ten Commandments as separate from the rest of the Law of Moses.
Actually what I said was that the stone tablets were given special significance since they were written by the finger of God. It makes sense that such an artifact would be given special treatment. But the Ark also contained the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded (Heb. 9:4). These things were physical artifacts that witnessed to the direct interaction God had with His Chosen People. And the book of the Law that Moses wrote, while it wasn’t an artifact that testified to God’s direct action, was still given special treatment by putting it on the side of the Ark. Not as special as the physical artifacts, but still a special place. It was the Book of the Covenant, and it was placed on the side of the Ark of the Covenant. It’s all about the Covenant.
But if you are following the words of Jesus and have genuine love for God and for your neighbor, why do you need any laws that say not to commit idolatry, lie, steal, commit adultery, or covet? You will automatically do those things.
But on what do you base that belief? The Old Testament says time and again that the Law given on Mt. Sinai was addressed to Israel. Jesus’ words go far beyond anything in the Law, so why do you need it?
I’m not saying you try to force your opinion on anyone else, nor do I suggest that you don’t have the right to believe what seems right to you. However, wouldn’t you want to know the truth, since God gave us His Word for that purpose? That Word should be our basis for truth, not just our own opinions or our own logic.
It’s certainly a good thing to set aside time to focus on God. I don’t say that we shouldn’t do that. But the point of the Sabbath as part of the Law given on Mt. Sinai was specifically as a sign of the relationship Israel had with God. Deut. 5:15 says that the reason God gave them the Sabbath was to remind them of how He brought them out of Egypt. Exodus 31:16-17 and Ezekiel 20:10-12 both specifically state that the Sabbath was to be a sign between God and Israel.
Today we have other things that separate us from the rest of the world, and we can enter into His rest on any day, or every day, by not relying on our works, as seen in Matthew 11:28-30 and Hebrews 3:14-4:11.
One would think such an important distinction would be stated more clearly.
Exactly why Paul contrasted the spirit with the letter of the Law. The starting point is faith in Jesus. When we love God and love our neighbor we will live according to God’s morals, and thus not not commit idolatry, or adultery, or lie or steal, etc. But if we say we must obey the Ten Commandments, we include the Sabbath, and there is nothing inherently “moral” about keeping it. It was a sign specifically for Israel. We can certainly set aside as much time for God as we want, on any day or every day. But the observance of the Sabbath as defined in the Torah was a specific sign for Israel.
As for the laws of Noah, Gen. 9:4-6 mention not eating “flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof,” and “whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” But the actual designation of “Noahide Laws” or “Noachian Code” are from the Talmud, and refer to a set of seven moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God to Noah as a binding set of laws for all mankind. (See Wikipedia article.) The four items in the letter to the Gentiles in Acts 15, on the other hand, refer to abstaining “from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Similar, but not the exact same code. If it were meant to be a reiteration of the Noahide Laws, they would have given all seven points.
The point is that there are certain things that are inherently immoral, and are therefore against most codes of law, whether Noahide, Mosaic, Christian, or civil laws. But there were also a number of things in the Law of Moses that were commanded not for the sake of morality but for the sake of keeping Israel separate. Those things were specifically commanded to Israel, and not to any other nation. This is an important difference.
That is indeed God’s desire. And as we gain that maturity, we will no longer need rules and laws, but will live according to God’s ways by faith and the spirit. That is the whole point of the New Covenant. It’s more than just a change in the sacrifice for our sins.
“If you read Exodus 19 through 24, especially chapter 20, you see that the Lord spoke audibly to the children of Israel at first, but they couldn’t bear it,”
Mark
I am pretty sure Thomas has read that over and over again and as you can see he doesnt see what you see because he didnt limit his understanding to back his belief , he looked for the truth to base a belief.
If you read Deuteronomy 5 you will find that God finished all of the Royal law and ADDED NO MORE without regard to the fear of the people.
IF GOD QUIT SPEAKING BECAUSE OF PEOPLES FEAR, DID HE ALSO QUIT WRITTING WITH HIS OWN FINGER BECAUSE OF PEOPLES FEAR. that just senseless
Deuteronomy 5
22 These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
How dare you comment to Thomas this “However, wouldn’t you want to know the truth, since God gave us His Word for that purpose?” when you yourself have no idea what the truth is. Atleast Thomas is seeking the truth.
You just make up a truth to support your belief.
Sorry Thomas for commenting, But that just rubbed me the wrong way
Mark C.
It seems to me that if the 4th. commandment about the Sabbath was not in the 10 Commandments then most Christians leaders of today would have no problem with me and others saying that the 10 Commandments still apply to us today.
But because most Christians leaders of today no longer recognize the Sabbath they say the 10 Commandments cannot possibly apply to us today since the Sabbath is just another day of the week for us to do our normal work of the week in and we no longer need a Sabbath day to honor God and to be close to him.
Exodus 31:12 “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, -ABOVE ALL- you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you shall know that I, the Lord sanctify you.”
Then he goes on to say in 31:16 “Therefore the people of Israel are to keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant -FOREVER-.”
Through our faith in Jesus we have been grafted on to the people of Israel and are able to receive all the promises of the Kingdom of Heaven that was promised to them and their descendants. I think that the only reason Christian leaders insist that the New Covenant states that the 10 Commandments no longer apply to us is because of the 4th. Commandment about the Sabbath.
If it wasn’t for that 4th. Commandment modern Christian leaders would not be making an issue about whether the 10 Commandments still apply to us or not. Everyone agrees that the rest of the 10 Commandments are good and would have no problem following them.
I don’t think it is wise to throw out the wisdom and goodness of the 10 Commandments just because you disagree with the one Commandment. You say we don’t need them and that we should automatically follow them if we love God and love our neighbor.
I don’t see the problem with Robert and I using them as a base to embark from and then after that letting the Holy Spirit guide us through each and every event that comes up in our daily lives. Jesus said, “His burden is light and his yoke is easy.” We are not encumbered by all the other 617 Mosaic laws that the Israelites of old were burdened with.
We now have freedom in Christ and are free from all those laws. At least that’s the way I see it. But I can understand that with the long Church history saying otherwise that you and others probably won’t agree with me. Like I said before, I have doubts about any church tradition that is not based on the scriptures.
There is no specific scripture that says the 10 Commandments no longer apply. And the book of Acts twice states that a form of Noahs law also applies and then on top of that we have the specific commands of Jesus.
I can’t see God being upset with me for following my beliefs. Jesus said, “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these Commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.”
The way I see it this is not a salvation issue. It is just an issue of if we want to be called “least” or if we want to be called “great” in the Kingdom of Heaven. I try to follow every commandment of Jesus and all his teachings (including parables) as best as I can humanly understand them and I don’t try to force my opinions on anyone else.
Everyone has the right to let the Holy Spirit guide them in their studies.
Robert
I have no problem with you commenting. Jesus said when 2 or more of you are gathered in my name I will be there among you (guiding you). The way I see it the more perspectives we have then the clearer our understanding will be as we all have the ability to see the truth slightly different from one another.
Sharing your beliefs with others is like getting a 360 degree view of God.
Actually he has said that he hasn’t read the OT very much, and only read these chapters from Exodus recently when we discussed it before.
We’ve been over this before but I will comment for Thomas’ sake. Deut. 5:22 reads in other versions as follows:
BBE: These words the Lord said to all of you together on the mountain, out of the heart of the fire, out of the cloud and the dark, with a great voice: and he said no more; he put them in writing on the two stones of the law and gave them to me.
GWV: These are the commandments the LORD spoke to your whole assembly on the mountain. He spoke in a loud voice from the fire, the cloud, and the gloomy darkness. Then he stopped speaking. He wrote the commandments on two stone tablets and gave them to me.
JPS: These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice, and it went on no more. And He wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them unto me.
Lamsa: These words the LORD spoke to all the assembly on the mountain out of the midst of the fire, in the cloud and in the thick darkness, with a loud voice which cannot be measured. And he wrote them upon two tablets of stone, and gave them to me.
NLT: The LORD spoke these words to all of you assembled there at the foot of the mountain. He spoke with a loud voice from the heart of the fire, surrounded by clouds and deep darkness. This was all he said at that time, and he wrote his words on two stone tablets and gave them to me.
And lest you claim that these versions are somehow biased, all one needs to do is read the records:
Ex. 20:
18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.
21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.
24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.
25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
Ex. 21:
1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
And the rest of chapters 21-23 give the judgments which God spoke to Moses to give to the people. And then in ch. 24 he refers to ALL the words of the Lord as the words of the Covenant. It could not be any plainer. And even the context of the verse you quote from Deuteronomy says the same thing:
Deut. 5:
22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.
31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.
Deut. 6:
1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:
It is plain from the context that the words that God spoke to Moses were a continuation of the Law that He started with the Ten Commandments. Add to this the simple fact that nowhere are the Ten Commandments ever referred to as separate from the rest of the Law, neither in the Scriptures nor in any Jewish tradition. And the verses I quoted in my last post that say that the Sabbath was part of the Law, which was given to Israel; NOT to the Fathers, and NOT to any other nation. Plus, Jesus quoted from both the Ten and other laws, giving no distinction. You seem to overlook these important points and only focus on your understanding of one verse (Deut. 5:22).
There are the records. Let the reader decide whether I am “making up a truth to support my belief.”
Possibly, although I also have some reservations about the command to not make “ANY graven image,” as opposed to simply not worshiping idols. But you’re correct, the Sabbath is definitely the most controversial issue of the Ten.
First of all, nobody says we don’t need a day to honor God and be close to Him, they just say that it is not required to be the seventh day, or any particular day, or even just one day. We can enter into His rest any time now.
Secondly, do most Christian leaders say that the Ten Commandments can’t possibly apply because they don’t recognize the Sabbath, or do they not observe the Sabbath because the Ten Commandments do not apply, having been addressed to Israel?
As for the reference to the Sabbath being a covenant “forever,” remember that the word for “forever” is olam which means “for the duration of an age.” Several other things in the Mosaic Law were called “perpetual” or “everlasting” statutes (the same Hebrew word olam, such as circumcision, dietary laws, and the priesthood. If the Sabbath is binding then these other things are as well.
The promises made to the Fathers (specifically Abraham) were based on Abraham’s FAITH, and not any works. That is the whole point Paul is making in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. The Law which came afterward does not invalidate those promises.
I don’t say we should “throw out the wisdom and goodness of the 10 Commandments.” I just believe that, like all of the Law of Moses, it has been fulfilled and we go beyond the Law in the New Covenant.
The problem is not using it as a starting point. The problem is in claiming that they are mandatory or binding. Even if one says they are not required for salvation but are still mandatory for everyday living, it’s still mandatory. It is also a matter of recognizing that some commandments were addressed specifically to national Israel, and not to anyone else.
That’s good. And you should also have doubts about any other doctrine, teaching, or opinion that is not based on Scriptures.
There are many Scriptures that speak of the Law being fulfilled and thus no longer binding, and that includes the Ten Commandments, since there is no Scripture that says the Ten are a separate law from the rest of Law of Moses. And the references to the so-called Noahide Laws in Acts nowhere says that they are binding for everyone. If it did it would contradict the whole point of Peter’s statement in Acts 15 – “[God] put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”
But again, which commandments was he referring to when he said that?
I’ve never suggested you were trying to force your opinions on anyone. Why do you keep saying that?
True, but since many people have been convinced that the Holy Spirit was guiding them even when they were wrong, it is obviously possible to be mistaken about that. The way to avoid this is to compare what you believe the Holy Spirit is showing you with what the Scriptures teach. The Spirit and the Word together are a system of checks and balances to keep us from getting out of bounds either way.
Mark
It seems you searched high and low to find BAD translations to back your claim. Didnt it bother you that most correctly translated it.
The American Standard Version
22 These words Jehovah spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them unto me.
King James Version (1611)
22 These wordes the Lord spake vnto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thicke darkenesse, with a great voice, and he added no more, and he wrote them in two Tables of stone, and deliuered them vnto me.
The New American Standard Bible
22 “These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick gloom, with a great voice, and He added no more. He R237 wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.
The Amplified Bible
22These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He spoke not again [added no more]. He wrote them on two tables of stone and gave them to me [Moses].
J.P. Green’s Literal Translation
22 Jehovah spoke these Words to all your assembly on the Mount, out of the midst of the fire of the cloud and out of the thick darkness with a great voice. And He added no more; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone, and gave them to me.
The Holy Bible, New International Version
22 These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
22″The Lord spoke these commands in a loud voice to your entire assembly from the fire, cloud, and thick darkness on the mountain; He added nothing more. He wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.
Holy Bible, English Revised Version
22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them unto me.
Holy Bible, English Standard Version
22 “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me
New Life Bible
22″The Lord spoke these words to you while you were all gathered at the mountain. He spoke with a loud voice from the center of the fire, the cloud and the darkness. He added no more. And He wrote them on two pieces of stone and gave them to me.
The New King James Version
22″These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.
Revised Standard Version
22 “These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me.
The Douay-Rheims Bible
22 These words the Lord spoke to all the multitude of you in the mountain, out of the midst of the fire and the cloud, and the darkness, with a loud voice, adding nothing more: and he wrote them in two tables of stone, which he delivered unto me.
World English Bible
22 These words Yahweh spoke to all your assembly on the mountain out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. He wrote them on two tables of stone, and gave them to me.
The Darby Translation
22 These words Jehovah spoke to all your congregation on the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the obscurity, with a great voice, and he added no more; and he wrote them on two tables of stone, and gave them to me.
Webster’s Bible Translation
22 These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly on the mount from the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them to me.
Young’s Literal Translation
22 `These words hath Jehovah spoken unto all your assembly, in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness — a great voice; and He hath not added, and He writeth them on two tables of stone, and giveth them unto me.
The Geneva Bible (1587)
22 These wordes the Lorde spake vnto all your multitude in the mount out of the mids of the fire, the cloude and the darkenes, with a great voyce, and added no more thereto: and wrote them vpon two tables of stone, & deliuered them vnto me.
The Bishop’s Bible (1568)
22 These wordes the Lorde spake vnto all your multitude in the mount, out of the middes of the fire, of the cloude, and of the darkenesse, with a great voyce, and added nothyng: and wrote them in two tables of stone, and deliuered them vnto me.
Miles Coverdale Bible (1535)
22 These are the wordes that the LORDE spake to all youre congregacion, vpon the mount out of the fyre of the cloude and darknesse with a greate voyce, and added nothinge therto. And he wrote them vpon two tables of stone, and delyuered the vnto me.
The Wycliffe Bible (1395)
22 The Lord spak these wordis to al youre multitude, in the hil, fro the myddis of fier and of cloude and of myist, with greet vois, and addide no thing more; and he wroot tho wordis in two tablis of stoon, whiche he yaf to me.
Thomas
here is a article that shows the sabbath was giving by God to mankind long before Abraham existed.
when God said remember My Sabbath it was refering to it already existing.
we know from Genesis 4 they were doing offerings but there was no refernce to any command to do it. God gave some commandments and one was probably the sabbath and others as not to murder, steal ,lie, commit adultery,etc.
we know that for Adam and Cain to have sinned there must of been Gods law
Genesis 4
3 And in process [3] of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock [4] and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
http://www.sabbathtruth.com/documentation/languages.asp
Robert,
You missed the point. The Hebrew words can be translated in any of the ways that the various versions render it. The question is, does “he added no more” mean that He never added any other laws, or that He didn’t say anything else with the loud voice they had heard from the mountain? The context of both Ex. 20ff and Deut. 5ff clearly indicate that He did in fact speak more laws to Moses, which were all part of the words of the covenant that was ratified in Exod. 24.
As for the article you linked to, there are several major problems in it.
The Bible does not mention the Sabbath until Exodus 16. While Genesis 2 says that God rested, no mention is made of any command to observe the Sabbath. And when it was given to Israel in Exodus 16, verse 29 says, “See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath…” It was afterward established as Law in Exodus 20:8-11 (see also Exodus 35:1-3).
Nehemiah establishes that it was given to Israel at Sinai.
Nehemiah 9:
13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:
Chapter 10 also lists the Sabbath as part of the Law that was revealed at Sinai.
Nehemiah 10:
29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;
30 And that we would not give our daughters unto the people of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons:
31 And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day: and that we would leave the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.
32 Also we made ordinances for us, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of our God;
33 For the shewbread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make an atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.
Deuteronomy 5 specifically states that the Mosaic covenant was made with the Israelites at Sinai and NOT with their fathers.
Deut. 5:
2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
While the Sabbath law reflects God’s resting on the seventh day, its primary purpose was not to commemorate His resting, but rather His leading them out of Egypt, according to Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 5:
15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
The Sabbath was to be a specific sign between God and Israel.
Exodus 31:
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Ezekiel 20:
10 Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness.
11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
The Sabbath, along with the rest of the Mosaic Law, was part of God’s unique covenant relationship with Israel, which set them apart from all other nations.
Psalm 147:
19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.
If the Sabbath was a universal command to all people, how could the Sabbath be a sign to set Israel apart from the other nations?
Gen. 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Gen. 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
The context of 7:5 is the things that God commanded Noah about building the ark and gathering the animals. Neither verse says anything about the Sabbath.
The rest of his reasoning is simply conjecture with not even an attempt at Biblical proof.
If the Bible says it was given to Israel for a sign between them and God to set them apart from the nations, and this person over 150 years ago says it wasn’t, I choose to believe the Bible.
“Robert,
You missed the point.”
No Mark i dont think i did, i could see what you were doing
It is perfectly clear he spoke the 10 commandments and added nothing.
Then after gave Moses the conditions of the covenant.
It is senseless to believe that God stopped because of the peoples fear and is not supported by anything you claim. on the other hand Duet.5 supports he was finished with giving the Royal law and therefore wrote them with his own finger as a complete law. What has confused you is that the law of Moses is based on them but is still separated in the giving,writting and storage from the 10 commandments.
Your illogical explanations for how the rest day (sabbath) existed before Israel is a weak attempt not based on any truth inside or outside the bible.
your excuse that the sabbath was ONLY giving as a sign of exodus is weak when it also was giving as a sign they were the children of God.
when God spoke the 10 commandments(royal law) He was just regiving to the people what he gave in the beginning. there are many things there is no record of any commandments to do, But we find they were done from the beginning and by many others even Abraham who followed all of them as we see here in this verse.
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
there is no record of these commandments ,statutes and laws but we know from that verse they were Giving by God and Followed by Abraham.
Since the sabbath day(rest day) goes back before Abraham in a language of the land he lived in and in all ancient languages of his time and it was the seventh day sanctified by God for rest from everyday works.
You can continue to give explainations and excuses that are not biblical but that doesnt mean i will ever fall for them.
My guess is Thomas wont either and my hope is that people who visit here wont either for their sake.
“While the Sabbath law reflects God’s resting on the seventh day, its primary purpose was not to commemorate His resting, but rather His leading them out of Egypt, according to Deuteronomy.”
Mark
there are many things called sabbaths by God and you need to learn the differences.
Days of unleavened bread are a sabbath celebration having 2 rest days.
Duet 5 :15 is speaking of Exodus 13 which was to be a sign of being led out of bondage
Exodus 13
6 Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to the Lord. 7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters. 8 And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt. 9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt. 10 Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.
Ezekiel 20:20
And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.
Ezekiel 20:12
Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.
Exodus 31:13
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.
seems the sabbath day was a sign of just who our God is.
Mine is Yahweh
Mark
what God sanctifies You. could it be the sun god
Robert (msg. 139)
I found the link in your message fascinating. Apparently it’s universally accepted in all languages going back to even before Abraham that the week consisted of 7 days and in almost all of them that the 7th. day is called the Sabbath (or day of rest).
How could all these different ancient peoples agree with each other that a week consisted of 7 days if they didn’t know the story of God’s creation and how he rested on the 7th. day?
Thomas
They couldnt of unless God revealed it to them or someone before them but we do know it was called the Sabbath before Babel when all these languages came into existance.
This is very powerful proof
Thomas
here is a copy of the original article by Rev.Jones
http://www.homeschoolhowtos.com/static/ChartOfTheWeek.pdf
Robert,
Disagree with me all you want, but do not accuse me of pagan idolatry.
“Robert,
Mark
what God sanctifies You. could it be the sun god
Disagree with me all you want, but do not accuse me of pagan idolatry. ”
Mark
I didnt accuse you of anything, i inquired.
Robert,
You know damn well I don’t worship the sun god. If you have nothing constructive to say, don’t waste my time with such statements.
Mark
You are exactly right, I do know that you would not worship the sun god purposely.
I am very sorry for such a stupid comment.
Mark C. (msg. 137)
You said, “First of all, nobody says that we don’t need a day to honor God and be close to him, they just say it is not required to be the seventh day, or any particular day, or just one day. We can enter into his rest any time now.”
I think the ability to rest from our normal work and be close to God, at any time we wanted to, has always existed. It did not begin with the New Covenant. The problem is that most people will put off doing things that they don’t have to do (I know I do it all the time) until such a time that they have to do it.
Setting one day aside every week, whether it is Saturday or Sunday, is a practical way to ensure that we actually DO spend the necessary time to rest and be close to God. The bible says that if we are still and quiet that God will be near (close to us).
You also said, “The promises made to the Fathers (specifically Abraham) were based on Abraham’s faith and not any works.”
I realize Paul said that the promises made to Abraham were based solely on his faith and not his works, but I don’t think I can agree with Paul on this point. I think it was a combination of works (following God’s commandments, statutes, and laws) and faith.
Faith was definately a key factor if not the most important factor but all this faith would have been for naught if Abraham had not have been righteous in God’s eyes. Even demons have faith that God is who he is but it doesn’t do them any good because they are not righteous in God’s eyes.
Gen. 26:4-5 “I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the world will be blessed, BECAUSE that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
You also said, “I don’t say we should throw out the ‘wisdom and the goodness of the 10 Commandments.’ I just believe, like all the law of Moses, it has been fulfilled and we go beyond the Law in the New Covenant.”
I understand that. But I don’t believe that when Jesus said he came to fulfill the law he was referring to the 10 Commandments. The way I understand it the 10 Commandments are the part of the law that Jesus was referring to when he said, “It will be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot or iota of the law to disappear.”
This is where you disagree with Robert and I. From my point of view God’s actions speak louder than words. He CHOSE to speak just 10 Commandments (not 12 or 15) and then he CHOSE to write these same 10 Commandments into the stone tablets and then he CHOSE to command Moses to put these 10 Commandments inside the Ark separate from all the other laws that God had revealed.
These actions indicate to me that these commandments are special and separate from the rest. I know you do not agree. But this belief of mine has just as much to do with feelings that I have regarding this as anything else. Just like you have feelings behind your beliefs.
It just makes sense to me and feels right. Feelings are a very difficult thing to try to explain to someone else and I don’t want to offend you or anyone else. I depend on the Holy Spirit to guide me as I’m sure you do as well. So being in touch and real with our feelings is important and relevant to each and every one of us.
You also said, “The problem is not using it as a starting point. The problem is in claiming they are mandatory or binding.”
I’m not claiming they are mandatory or binding on you or anyone else. I’m just saying I believe they are mandatory and binding on me. This of course is just my opinion.
You also said, “And you should also have doubts about any other doctrine, teaching, or opinion that is not based on the scriptures.”
Since the beginning of time (even before Jesus) people have been disagreeing about what certain scriptures mean and how we should interpret them. I see the scriptures implying things that you don’t seem to see and you see the scriptures implying things that I don’t seem to see. I believe this is normal given our human condition and our limited perceptions.
You also said, “And the references to the so-called Noahide laws in Acts do not say they are binding on everyone.”
They also don’t say that they are not. I still don’t really understand what makes you think that this decision of the Council of Jerusalem somehow was just a temporary decision or a limited decision that does not apply to us today.
The only that I can think of is that because the decision at the Council of Jerusalem seems to contradict your interpretation of Paul’s writings than you conclude that this decision must have been just temporary of limited in some way. Whereas I’m not so sure I can believe everything that Paul says in his writings and that’s probably why my conclusions are different from yours.
You also said, “I’ve never suggested your trying to force your opinions on anyone. Why do you keep saying that?”
I’m trying to remember what Jesus and Peter said about being humble and reverent when defending your beliefs. I also want to make it clear that I do not consider myself to be a teacher. I am just a student of Christ exploring my beliefs with other Christians and listening to the feedback that I am getting.
I remember once defending my Unitarian beliefs here and forgetting about what both Jesus and Peter taught. I let my emotions drive me to the point that I wasn’t very humble or reverent and I did not act very Christian like.
You also said, “The Spirit and the Word together are a system of checks and balances to keep us from getting out of bounds either way.”
I agree. Also sharing your beliefs with others helps you to focus on what it is you actually believe and allows others to point out any discrepencies in your beliefs.
Good points Robert,
There are also many other places that God directly makes commandments other than the BIG TEN.
It is obvious that the Sabbath Jesus followed. How he followed it is not relevant. The point is, he followed the Sabbath day and he kept it holy. We must remember that in the Kingdom we (Jew and Gentile) will continue to follow God’s ways.
Just to clarify, when I said how he followed the sabbath was not relevant, I meant that he taught us the correct way to follow the sabbath, rather than what the opposing Jews of his time imposed upon the sabbath in their own traditions.
The ability to take a break and focus on God may have existed, but under the Law they were required to set aside the seventh day and do no work in it, as a sign of their relationship with God. If this had been a universal command to all mankind, how would observing the Sabbath have served to set Israel apart?
As I said, setting aside a day every week for God is not a bad idea, but it’s the requirement of doing it on the seventh day that was part of the Old Covenant, and is no longer binding.
It was a combination, but the faith had to come first, and the works were in demonstration of that faith, by way of obedience to God’s commands.
It wasn’t just Paul who said that Abraham was justified by faith. The Old Testament itself says so, in Gen. 15:6 – “And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” Also James mentions it in his epistle.
James 2:
22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Abraham believed God FIRST, and God reckoned it as righteousness. THEN and BECAUSE OF that, Abraham’s works perfected his faith, because his obedience to God demonstrated his faith.
Likewise, we are expected to obey God’s commands, not as a means to righteousness but as a demonstration of our faith. And the way to do that is to obey the commands that God has given us. I think you and I and Robert all agree on this, but disagree on whether the Ten Commandments are the commands which God has given us and expects us to obey as a demonstration of our faith.
But again, there is nothing in the Bible that makes such a distinction.
As I have said, the Ten Commandments are indeed special, as they are the foundation of the Law, and were spoken audibly and written in stone by the finger of God. But there is no indication in the Exodus 20ff or Deut. 5ff that the Ten Comm. were addressed to all people everywhere, while the rest of the Law was only to Israel. Look up the term “Law of Moses” – throughout the Bible it refers to the whole Law including the Ten Commandments. Also several terms are used interchangeably in referring to the Law: “…Keep the charge of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in THE LAW OF MOSES…” (I Kings 2:3). And there are several verses (which I referenced in comment #140) that specifically say that the Law was the Old Covenant and was to and for Israel, and not to the Fathers or to any other nation. You just can’t get around that.
How could God’s commandments be mandatory for one person and not for another? Either it’s mandatory or it isn’t – that’s what mandatory means. Otherwise it would be optional.
The decision of the council was regarding how the Gentiles would live in peace with, and not offend, the Jewish believers. The reason I believe that it is not intended for all people is that if that were the case it would contradict what PETER said in that very chapter, not just that it would contradict Paul. Peter emphatically stated:
Acts 15:
8 “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;
9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
10 “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
Now I know that Robert argues that nobody is saying the Law is required for salvation. But the issue was that “some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.’” And it was in response to this that Peter made his statement about God cleansing their hearts by faith. They were talking about salvation AND sanctification in this case. No written law or list of do’s and don’t's can save a person or perfect their heart.
And besides, if the Sabbath were universally required, why is there no mention of it here? They would put no greater burden than these things; that includes not making the Sabbath requirements mandatory.
True. That’s why these conversations have been helpful. But to point out anyone’s discrepancies I believe the Scriptures must be our guide. That’s why I endeavor to back up what I say with Scripture. I hope I’ve been helpful in that regard.
Here are a couple of other articles regarding this subject. They can be downloaded as Word docs by clicking on the links. (They are from the Biblical Truthseekers website.)
http://www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk/uploadData/files/20100224034230W.3-3.SABBATH-KEEPING.doc
http://www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk/uploadData/files/20100215093445W.3-4.NOTMOSAICLAW.doc
You guys,
Your arguments are good and convincing. Let’s keep the demeanor honorable, please. I know I’ve flared up in the past myself, but let’s work together and help each other to remain calm and collected.
Argue the case, not the person. If a person commits a fallacy, identify and correct the fallacy, but leave the person out of it.
You’re still doing a great job.
Jaco
“And besides, if the Sabbath were universally required, why is there no mention of it here?”
Mark
The point i am trying to make is the sabbath is observed out of Love . Love is what is required for Salvation.
It has never been just how perfect we were, It has always been about what motivates to seek Gods perfection.
This is the people God wants.
“If this had been a universal command to all mankind, how would observing the Sabbath have served to set Israel apart?”
Mark
you are under the assumption that when God chose Israel He desired only Israel to worship Him. Gods purpose was never to set apart it was to set an example to the World.
While following Gods ways do set us apart it only serves a purpose to identify the ONE TRUE GOD.
There has always been this purpose and the fact the sabbath was universally observed way before Israel shows it was a sign of people who worshiped the ONE TRUE GOD. The rememberance of this is why God gave the sabbath command within His morals and why it was so important for Israel show this sign.
Exodus 31:13 – Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.
Ezekiel 20:12 – Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.
Sanctify: Heb. qadash; to set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate.
Mark
I am very aware of that definition and have been for a very long time.
While your getting your whole understanding from one definition i am looking to the purpose of the action of sanctifying within the plan of God.
From what i see from the whole word of God is this action was done to serve as an example to the whole world.
there is so much to see when you widen your focus
Thomas
what do you understand from these verses in Hebrews 4
added a few different versions for you
The New King James Version
8For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.
Holy Bible, English Revised Version
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest hath himself also rested from his works, as God did from his.
New International Version
8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that
The Complete Jewish Bible
8 For if Y’hoshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later of another “day.” 9 So there remains a Shabbat-keeping for God’s people. 10 For the one who has entered God’s rest has also rested from his own works, as God did from his.
Mark C. (msg. 154)
You said, “If this had been a universal command to all mankind, how would observing the Sabbath served to set Israel apart?”
It would seem at one point all mankind recognized and observed the Sabbath, but at the time of Moses only the Israelites were continuing to observe the Sabbath setting them apart from the rest of mankind. It was suppose to be an example for the rest of mankind to eventually follow. Of course this is just my opinion.
You also said, “It was a combination, but the faith had to come first, and the works were in demonstration of that faith, by way of obedience to God’s commands.”
That does make sense, but even after he developed his faith he still had commandments from God that he had to follow. You say when Jesus said, “It will be easier for heaven and earth to pass away then one dot or iota of the law to disappear.” That he wasn’t referring to the 10 Commandments.
If Jesus wasn’t referring to the 10 Commandments, What law was it that he was referring to??
I know this is a bit of topic but you referred to Exodus 20ff and Deut. 5ff, What does ff stand for??
You also said, “And there are several verses (which I referenced in a previous message) that specifically say that the law of the Old Covenant was to and for Israel.”
I agree. That’s why I don’t believe the 600 plus laws of the Old Covenant apply to us today. We are just disagreeing over a small subsection of the law.
You also said, “How could God’s commandments be mandatory for one person and not for another?”
I have been reading Paul and even he says if eating meat sacrificed to Idols bothers you than you shouldn’t eat it. Then he goes on to say that he has no problem eating of it and seems to take a rather “Live and Let Live” attitude toward at least this aspect of the Law.
You also said, “The decision of the Council was regarding how the Gentiles would live in peace with, and not offend, the Jewish believers.”
Again since this is not stated specifically anywhere it is just your opinion, a widely held opinion, but an opinion non the less.
You go on to say, “The reason I believe it is not intended for all people is if that were the case it would contradict what Peter said in that very chapter.”
Peter said, “Now, therefore, Why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers or we have been able to bear?”
Above Peter was referring to placing the yoke of circumcision and the other laws on to the Gentiles. The fact that he wasn’t referring to the minimal (Noahide) law is obvious in the fact that this was the decision that was reached AFTER Peter made this statement and that everyone agreed that this was a decision of the Holy Spirit.
Peter and the Apostles and all the Church leaders and Elders believed that placing this minimal form of Noah’s law on to the Gentiles was not too great of a yoke to place on them. If they didn’t believe this they would not of all have agreed on this decision like they did.
What most modern readers don’t realize that these minimal laws were a very difficult thing for the Gentiles of that time to follow. Buying meat that had not been sacrificed to one God or another was basically impossible. The result was that as a result of this decision most Gentiles would (for all practical purposes) have had to become vegetarians in order to follow these laws.
Paul on the other hand was telling his followers that the Christian Gentiles among them that were vegetarians were in fact weak minded. This is one of my biggest problems with what Paul taught. It seems to be the exact opposite of what Peter and the Apostles and the Church leaders and Elders all taught.
The links you sent me were long but very informative. Of course I didn’t agree with everything they were saying but I always like to look at other people’s points of view.
BTW – I am moving this weekend and I have to finish packing so I might not have very much time to talk to you until next week sometime. Thanks again for not just calling me a heretic and dismissing me…
Robert (msg. 160)
I just read chapter 4. You probably aren’t expecting this answer but it seems to me, by entering God’s rest, it is referring to the inner peace we feel when we are quiet and still and can feel God being close to us. That is when I’m at complete rest. My mind, my soul, and my body are all at a perfect peaceful rest knowing God’s love and presence is near.
For most of my life I have been struggling to find inner peace but there was always an angry unsettled feeling that it seemed I could never shake. I was always angry at things that were happening around me or about things that had happened to me in the past etc…
Through my studies of the Bible and through my increasing faith and confidence to trust God in everything I finally found that inner peace (or rest with God). I thank God for having mercy on me and for his patience with me (I was an staunch Atheist for almost 20 years).
Thomas
that is a very interesting understanding
Everyone
what is your understanding of Hebrews 4
there is no wrong answer as long as your answer honestly like Thomas did.
You’re certainly free to hold that opinion, but I have to wonder why you hold it when there is no mention of anything like that in the Bible. It clearly says the Sabbath was given to Israel as a sign of their covenant with God (see comment #140).
As far as the origin of the name of the day in other languages, nobody knows for sure when or why the different languages may have adopted the term Sabbath. There are many different opinions and, as one source put it, “the only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing for sure.” I’d rather put my trust in what the Bible clearly says.
That’s true. And he obeyed the commandments that were addressed to him (leaving his homeland, getting circumcised, offering his son as a sacrifice, etc.). Israel had commandments that were addressed to them, and we have commandments that are addressed to us. Obedience requires knowing what commands are addressed to us.
He was referring to the Law of Moses, which includes, but is not limited to the Ten Commandments. We know this because when he quoted the law, he quoted things both in and outside of the Ten, and referred to both as the Law of Moses, with no distinction between the two. That should be one of the most convincing arguments, in my opinion, since Jesus knew how to rightly divide God’s Word.
It means “and following.” I referred to Exodus 20 and the following chapters, and Deut. 5 and the following chapters.
I agree.
That’s what I mean by “optional.” We are free to eat or not eat, according to our own decision, as opposed to being required to follow the laws that were previously mandatory. Likewise we are free to observe or not observe the Sabbath according to our own decision. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
Since the whole argument was whether or not to impose the Law on the Gentiles, because God purifies the heart through faith, what other reason would there be to tell them to observe those four things and nothing else? Any command that is made because it is a law (Mosaic, Noahide, or otherwise) would go against the whole point that is being made here, which is that God purifies the heart by faith and not by laws.
Why was it impossible? The Jews must have been able to find meat that wasn’t offered to idols.
Paul didn’t say they were “weak minded,” he said they were “weak in the faith.” Some believe they may eat anything they want because the dietary laws of the Old Covenant are no longer binding. Others who are weaker in their faith feel they should not eat certain things. Paul is saying that the one who eats should not think less of the one who does not eat, and vice versa. It’s up to the individuals to make that choice, rather than mandatory laws. And the same is true with observing one day above another. “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.”
This is exactly what I’m talking about. We can enter into His rest and find peace any day, any time. That is the rest that the Sabbath foreshadowed, and it is now spiritualized, just as the sacrifices and circumcision are spiritualized now. It goes beyond the letter of the Law, so we are not limited to the requirement of one day a week. That’s why Hebrews says there remains a Sabbath rest to the people of God. And it further foreshadows the ultimate rest we will have in the coming Kingdom.
Mark
Actually it was translated into Latin to mean observing/keeping of the sabbath and referenced to a certain day By God to David.
Today which was the day of the Sabbath, if it was meaning any day then it was no longer necesary for saturday in the OT which we all know isnt true. Nowhere does this say any day. so how could that be your understanding of it.
Thomas was showing us what it meant to him, Not what day which wasnt the question i asked. He can chose what he wants, but he dont try to teach others what he believes.
The Latin Vulgate (425)
9 itaque relinquitur sabbatismus populo Dei 10
sabbatismus
JM Latin English Dictionary
N M
observing/keeping of the sabbath
No where in the NT does it say that we can worship the Sabbath on any day.
Joseph
you are completely correct.
Also in Hebrews 3-4 the word requiem translated rest and is use throughout these verses but sabbatismus translated keeping of the sabbath is only used once in verse 9 in reference to it remaining a requirement for christians. the literal meaning of sabbatismus is the keeping of a certain day named the sabbath.
while Hebrews 3-4 speaks of creation and also the coming Kingdom of God but sabbatismus is referenced the way it is, to separate it as necessity of christians.
this isnt saying it is a requirement of salvation , it is saying it is a requirement for those who have been already accounted for salvation. A sign of that sanctification
“We know this because when he quoted the law, he quoted things both in and outside of the Ten, and referred to both as the Law of Moses, with no distinction between the two.”
If there was no distinction then how do you then make your distinction in the statement “he quoted things both in and outside of the Ten”
kinda contradictory isnt it
He quoted things that were in the Ten Commandments along with things from other parts of the Law, and gave no hint that the Ten were in any way separate from the rest of the Law.
Matt. 19:
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Commands about murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and honoring father and mother are from the 10 Commandments. Love your neighbor as yourself is from Leviticus 19:13. But he calls them all “the commandments” and makes no distinction between them.
Mark 10:
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Commands about murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and honoring father and mother are from the 10 Commandments. Do not defraud is from Leviticus 19:18. But he calls them all “the commandments” and makes no distinction between them.
Mark 7:
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Honor father and mother is from the 10 Commandments, while the commandment about cursing them is from Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9. But both are called the commandment of God, with no distinction, and both are credited to Moses, since he wrote them down, even though it was ultimately from God.
“Commands about murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and honoring father and mother are from the 10 Commandments. Love your neighbor as yourself is from Leviticus 19:13. But he calls them all “the commandments” and makes no distinction between them.”
Love your neighbor as yourself is just as summary of those he quoted
Commands about murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and honoring father and mother are from the 10 Commandments. Do not defraud is from Leviticus 19:18. But he calls them all “the commandments” and makes no distinction between them.
Do not defraud was just describing bearing false witness
Honor father and mother is from the 10 Commandments, while the commandment about cursing them is from Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9. But both are called the commandment of God, with no distinction, and both are credited to Moses, since he wrote them down, even though it was ultimately from God.
Cursing father or mother was just describing not honoring.
So i still see your statement contradictory if you can claim distinction.
the law of Moses just expands on the Law of God, a very good source for examples
Robert,
Here is my understanding of Hebrews 3-4. Keep in mind that you said there is no wrong answer as long as you answer honestly.
Starting in 3:7, the context is talking about how the Israelites hardened their hearts and tempted God in the wilderness, for which reason they did not enter into His rest. Chapter 4 says we should therefore fear, lest we come short of the promise of His rest. The way we do that is to believe (v. 3) since the gospel did not profit them because it was not mixed with faith. “We which have believed do enter into rest,” which is then compared with God resting after His works.
Verse 7: He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.”
“Today” we are not to harden our hearts.
Verse 8: For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.
So far it is speaking generally of entering into God’s rest through faith, not about the Sabbath. The first time the word Sabbath occurs is in verse 9. Does this refer to a requirement to observe the day called the Sabbath? Verse 10 continues, “For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.” It’s still talking about entering into His rest and resting from our works, through our faith. Is this done only on the Sabbath, or is it something that we should make a lifestyle?
Verse 11: “Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.” I believe the reference to the Sabbath in verse 9 is comparing this entering into God’s rest through faith with the literal Sabbath observance. This entering into God’s rest through faith is the Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God. It could include observing the day called the Sabbath if one desires to, but is not limited to that.
Joseph said, “No where in the NT does it say that we can worship the Sabbath on any day.” I believe Col. 2:16-17, as well as Rom. 14:5-6 do say that, although I know that you and he, at least, disagree with my understanding of those verses.
What is very misunderstood about Jesus is after his baptism he was lead by the Holy spirit.
As a christian we receive our understanding of Gods laws through the gift of the Holy spirit which is the new better way of those who accept the New covenant as opposed to those who accepted the Old covenant were dependent on the understanding giving by the law of Moses.
Therefore Jesus’ understandings of Gods 10 commandments were coming from the Holy spirit not the Law of Moses.
while most of the understandings were probably the same they still need to be learned how to apply to a different world not the nation of Israel. This is where the Holy spirit guides us in the spirit of the law.
“Robert,
Here is my understanding of Hebrews 3-4.”
Mark
Thank you for your honest understanding.
knowing how other people see things allows me to understand how people minds work.
“Joseph said, “No where in the NT does it say that we can worship the Sabbath on any day.” I believe Col. 2:16-17, as well as Rom. 14:5-6 do say that”
Mark
so lets deal with these 2
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, [5] or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
First thing is the first and the last are one sentence therefore should read
“Let no man therefore judge you but the body is of Christ.”
Btw “is” is added by translator.
So we see that we should allow the body of christ to be our judge, that is the christian church.
“or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:”
This and almost every translation uses respect, a few observance but the word respect means
Date: 14th century
1 : a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation
2 : an act of giving particular attention : consideration
3 a : high or special regard : esteem b : the quality or state of being esteemed c plural : expressions of respect or deference
4 : particular, detail
— in respect of chiefly British : with respect to : concerning
— in respect to : with respect to : concerning
— with respect to : with reference to : in relation to
Nowhere in this word do i see a negitive meaning.
so this could read
“or in respect( high or special regard )of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:”
“17 Which are a shadow of things to come”
Notice the word “are” not the word “were” meaning a present existance at the time this was wrote.
Romans 14
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded [2] in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth [3] the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
This is dealing with the pagan name of days and the feast of the pagan days.
The sabbath keepers were being reminded by their pagan country men that Saturday was in honor of the god saturn and when Gods feast fell on ther days they were being told they were honoring the god of that day too in their feast.
Paganity was a big problem in this area and the days were honoring pagan gods and whoever wasnt was persecuted or shuned by the Romans.
so to base a whole belief on these 2 seems to me to be a very weak doctrine.
As with other related issues, we’ve been over this before but I will comment for Thomas’ sake.
Can you provide any proof that it should read that way? It is certainly not born out by the Greek.
It couldn’t mean that, because in Romans 14 Paul says we are NOT to judge each other about observing or not observing one day above another.
I never said there was a negative meaning in the words “in respect of.”
Exactly. No one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day.
The writer of Hebrews (possibly Paul) uses the present tense as well. Hebrews 10:1 “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.” Verse 10 of that chapter refers to the body of Christ in contrast to the shadow, which language is similar to that of Colossians 2:17.
Hebrews 8:4-5 also refers to the Law as a shadow. “For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle.”
In addition, the whole context of Colossians 2 is referring to the spiritualized things that have replaced the Law.
Colossians 2:
6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Regarding Romans 14:5-6…
Where does it say that?
There is nothing in this passage about the pagan names of days. It says, quite simply, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” If he was talking about honoring pagan gods he would not have said “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” since worshiping pagan gods is idolatry and to be avoided.
Paul means what he says in this passage. One person gives special importance to one day over another, while another person views every day equally. Neither is wrong – every man should be persuaded in his own mind. A plain and simple reading of this passage would naturally imply that it included the Sabbath and other holy days. If that were not the case and the Sabbath was still required, he would have stated that the Sabbath was an exception, to avoid any misunderstanding.
I don’t base a whole belief on these 2 passages. I base it on the many references in the NT that refer to the New Covenant being superior to, and replacing, the Old Covenant, which is the Law of Moses, including the Sabbath.
Mark,
I stand by my statement, nowhere does it say we can worship the SABBATH DAY on just any day. That is why Christ observed the Sabbath day on the same day as every Jew did. Why not follow Christ’s example?
Col. 2:16-17 can go both ways in interpretation. I can say that one can also judge another that does follow the Sabbath in it’s traditional manner.
“17 Which are a shadow of things to come”…
“a shadow of things to come,” because according to prophecy, we will be observing the God’s Sabbath and Traditions in the Kingdom!
Rom. 14:5-6 is by far a stretch to support your position, as I don’t know any Jew that does not think that every day is meant for God. This also does not mean that the Sabbath is just another day in the mix. I follow the Sabbath, but I also hold every day of the week just as grateful to my Creator.
Shabbat Shalom!
I should clarify. I’m not saying you can worship or observe the SABBATH DAY on just any day. I’m saying you can enter God’s rest on any day, which is what the Sabbath pointed to. We can enter his rest now, and as the promised land in the OT was symbolic of that rest, entering his rest by faith today also looks forward to the perfect rest we will have in the Kingdom.
BTW, pesach (passover) starts Monday here in Israel, I hope all have a wonderful passover in remembrance of past, present, and future, that we will one day witness our Messiah savior celebrate passover again…
“I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:29).
As you see, we will continue to follow traditions and customs that many Christians oppose. How many Christians do you know that follow actual Passover, and have a Passover meal in the way that Christ and Moses had their Passover meal?
“First thing is the first and the last are one sentence therefore should read
“Let no man therefore judge you but the body is of Christ.”
Can you provide any proof that it should read that way? It is certainly not born out by the Greek.”
Mark
So you are saying”but the body of Christ” is a stand alone sentence and doesnt provide anything to the context of the statement above it.
makes perfect sense when you understand “is” is added.
Judgement of church matters are to be done by the Body of the church(Christ) which Jesus is the head.
But your right we have gone over this and probably will again
Often the verb “to be” (in this case “is”) is part of the word that’s translated, without a separate verb, which is why you often see it in italics. The NET note on this verse says, “The term body here, when used in contrast to shadow (skia) indicates the opposite meaning, i.e., the reality or substance itself.” Most commentaries agree with that understanding. The sentence is saying that the things in verse 16 are a shadow, but the “body” or substance of which it is a shadow, is Christ.
Understanding verse 17 that way would contradict the whole context, as well as Romans 14.
I should clarify. I’m not saying you can worship or observe the SABBATH DAY on just any day. I’m saying you can enter God’s rest on any day, which is what the Sabbath pointed to.
Mark
actually the sabbath points to the kingdom of God which what day or time not even Jesus knew.
when hebrews 4 says there is still a sabbath keeping this is not refering to any other day of rest It refers to the Sabbath day, the seventh day of the week. By observing this we are entering spiritually the KOG not physically because physically it hasnt come.
The sabbath is how we enter something spiritually that hasnt come physically. Can you see just how much love God has for us by giving us this special way to experience the Kingdom before hand.
The whole context of the passage is about entering God’s rest by faith. That is what the Sabbath pointed to. It will be ultimately experienced in the Kingdom, but we are exhorted to “labor to enter into that rest” even now.
Hebrews 4:
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
This is talking about a whole lifestyle of faith, not just observing the Sabbath once a week. God indeed has such great love for us that we can experience aspects of the Kingdom beforehand. But the foretaste of our inheritance is the Holy Spirit, not the observance the Sabbath once a week, which was addressed to Israel.
Mark
If i make it into the KOG i will be happy to tell you after the 2nd ressurection just how beautiful it was, if dont then we can both ask someone who did.
Here is an article i just found that provides a better understanding of Heb 4
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1668562/posts
a full 2 weeks before the 10 commandments were given, God in reference to sabbath keeping makes this statement
Exodus 16
28 And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
When were the commandments and laws given that included the sabbath commandment.
these were the commandments and laws Abraham followed setting them apart from the law of Moses.
how could they sin or idol worship in egypt without the 2nd commandment.
The 10 commandments were just a regiving of Gods law to humanity in the beginning
How about five verses before?
Ex. 16:
23 then he said to them, “This is what the LORD meant: Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning.”
This refers back to the command to gather twice as much manna on the sixth day, in verse 5. It is the first mention of the Sabbath in the Bible.
We should also notice the very next verses after the one you quoted.
Ex. 16:
29 “See, the LORD has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.”
30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
Notice, God said, “I have given you the sabbath.” This agrees with the verses I have quoted before (comment #140) which clearly state that the Sabbath was specifically a sign between God and Israel.
The Bible doesn’t say that. It just says Abraham believed God and obeyed His commandments. Those commandments included leaving his homeland and going to Canaan, getting circumcised, offering his son as a sacrifice, etc. Nowhere does it say those commandments included the Sabbath, in addition to the above mentioned verses that specifically say it was given to Israel on Mt. Sinai, and was specifically addressed to them. You have in the past reacted with indignation when I pointed out that not all references to God’s commandments refer to the Ten Commandments. Yet you still keep quoting verses that speak of His commandments and interpret them as if they meant the Ten or part of the Ten.
The second commandment was not the first place to mention other gods, just as the fifth commandment was not the first mention of killing. Some of the things in the Law (not just the 10 Comm.) were reiterations of things that had been mentioned before, such as circumcision and the Passover. And the Sabbath had been given to Israel in the wilderness before Mt. Sinai. However there is no Scripture that says the Sabbath was given to all mankind before it was given to Israel, and several that specifically say it was given to Israel as a special sign of their unique relationship with God (see comment #140). You just can’t get away from those verses.
PS – The Free Republic article provides another understanding of Hebrews 4. Whether it’s better is a matter of opinion.
Mark C.
Just to let you know I’ve been following the conversation but I don’t have the time to respond to the message you sent me. I am now going to pack up my computer. I hope to be back online Sunday or Monday…
23 then he said to them, “This is what the LORD meant: Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the LORD
This shows the sabbath was already being observed, not a given of it.
This is commandment that was forgotten by most of the people during bondage because they were not allowed to observe it.
“You have in the past reacted with indignation when I pointed out that not all references to God’s commandments refer to the Ten Commandments.”
Mark everyone knows that, thats not a special revelation but there are many times it means just that and everytime one is pointed out you scream this. You need to learn the difference so you dont have to use this defence.
you need to widen your focus to see all the truth in the scriptures.
Here is an interesting quotation from the Church Father Tertullian, who was certainly no friend of the Sabbath:
“. . . Adam observed the Sabbath . . . Abel, when offering to God a holy victim, pleased Him by a religious reverence for the Sabbath; . . . Enoch, when translated, had been a keeper of the Sabbath . . . .”
Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chap. IV, “Of the Observance of the Sabbath,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 155.
Matthew Henry says in his Commentary:
“Sabbaths are as ancient as the world; and I see no reason to doubt that the Sabbath . . . was religiously observed by the people of God throughout the patriarchal age.”
Matthew Henry, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. I, p. 8.
the Midrash records the following
“. . . the Israelites possessed scrolls with the contents of which they regaled themselves . . . each Sabbath, assuring them that God would redeem them. Thus because they rested on the Sabbath, Pharaoh said to them: Let heavier work be laid upon the men, that they may labour therein: and let them not regard lying words . . . let them not take delight or rest on the Sabbath day. ”
Midrash Rabbah, Exodus, Soncino ed., on Exodus 8:28, p. 35.
Martin Luther wrote:
“Adam . . . held the ‘seventh day’ sacred; that is, he taught on that day his own family.”
Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. I, p. 139.
Where did they get their information.
you do realize that 3 out of the 4 references were antisabbath.
Is there writtings they had that we no longer have, were there references to this in the writtings we have that were removed.
They got this understanding somewhere
How does that show it was already being observed? “This is what the LORD meant” refers back to God’s command to gather twice as much manna on the sixth day.
Ex. 16:
4 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction.
5 “On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily.”
22 Now on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. When all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses,
23 then he said to them, “This is what the LORD meant: Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning.”
24 So they put it aside until morning, as Moses had ordered, and it did not become foul nor was there any worm in it.
25 Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field.
26 “Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the sabbath, there will be none.”
27 It came about on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, but they found none.
28 Then the LORD said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions?
29 “See, the LORD has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.”
30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
As I said, this is the first mention of the Sabbath in the Bible. And the verses which I quoted in comment #140 (which you still seem to ignore) say that the Sabbath was given to Israel as a sign of their covenant with God.
References?
I never said it was a special revelation. But if everyone knows that, why do you keep quoting verses that mention “God’s commandments” as if it’s a given that they refer to the Ten?
Because you point it out as if it says “The Ten Commandments” when it doesn’t, and in many cases could not possibly refer to the Ten.
I could quote theologians and even church fathers who agree with my position too; it proves nothing. I find it interesting that the church fathers and the rabbis who wrote the midrash – whom you have previously decried for adding their interpretations to God’s law – are now being cited as proof that the Sabbath was observed before Moses.
If the Bible says it was given to Israel at Mt. Sinai, and some men say it was given to all men some time before, I will choose to believe what the Bible says.
They got it from misunderstanding the Scriptures. If there were any writings that said the Sabbath was given before Mt. Sinai to all men, it would contradict the clear Scriptures we have which say otherwise.
“Because you point it out as if it says “The Ten Commandments” when it doesn’t, and in many cases could not possibly refer to the Ten.”
Mark
It is only your and others opinion which clearly have motives for such an opinion.
These are clear verses which you dismiss because you are motivated to do so to back your traditional beliefs.
everyone has opinions that are only motivated by their beliefs and lifestyle.
I have no lifestyle to back and no traditions to uphold, i am a literalist who only follows clear verses to understand not so clear verses.
You have never proven that any of the reference to Gods laws i use are not in fact just that.
the fact is you cant, you can only give me your bias opinion
“As I said, this is the first mention of the Sabbath in the Bible. And the verses which I quoted in comment #140 (which you still seem to ignore) say that the Sabbath was given to Israel as a sign of their covenant with God.”
Mark
i have never ignored thoses verses as to whats its sayng, they are perfectly clear.
there is no doubt the sabbath was to be a sign, but what you fail to see is that doesnt make it the only purpose.
The moon may have been giving to them as sign, but that doesnt make the creation of the moon at that time. it would be just something already existing being used as a sign.
the fact that there was a day named the sabbath(which meant day of rest) from the beginning of all languages shows the sabbath prexisted Israel several thousand years.
while your a correct with how it was giving to Israel which is no great feat, you are very wrong about it not existing before Israel.
but if it is necessary for you to belief that, then by all means continue.
“I could quote theologians and even church fathers who agree with my position too; it proves nothing. I find it interesting that the church fathers and the rabbis who wrote the midrash – whom you have previously decried for adding their interpretations to God’s law – are now being cited as proof that the Sabbath was observed before Moses.”
Yes you could but you would only be able to find ones that have a motive to have that opinion.
I used 3 that certainly had motives to give an opposite opinion, that is what makes their statements so powerful.
Just because some people have false beliefs or have been a part of false doctrines doesnt make everything about them false.
If that were the case then should you be defined by your past beliefs without regard to your current.
there is so many who provide bias opinions for a reason but when something clearly shows they have nothing to prove it just might be an honest opinion.
now its time for me to give my honest understanding of Hebrews 3-4.
I see the author of Hebrews addressing a issue of the true meaning of the Sabbath to the hebrew people who thought that the Sabbath was only given as sign to them showing them it existed from the beginning and was a shadow of the Kingdom of God. thererfore showing the Sabbath was made for all mankind removing it as a division between jew and gentile and showing it was still something God expected to be observed from the Children of God, greek or jew
From Christ’s perspective, were we made for him, or was he made for us? It seems to me that though he was made for us, (according to the flesh) we are not lord over him. He as God’s rest to us is made Lord over us. Though he was made for us, we are made for him.
The answer to this question seems to be a matter of perspective.
I was not made for the sabbath in respect of the law, that is in the keeping of it by the law, but am made for Christ by the grace of God who gave us his spirit for our keeping, even the keeping of the things of Christ.
While in the new covenant, I may keep the sabbath day unto the Lord if I wish, but will not be perfected thereby, except that as a man keeps any day unto the Lord, God is thereby perfecting him. Though the law can instruct me and does teach me many things, my perfection will not come by the law, in keeping this day or that, this feast or that,
or in eating this or not eating that.
A man might find good communion with God, alone, or with his fellow man in such things if he please, even though such things are no longer commanded by God.
Mark C. (msg. 165)
I said, “It would seem at one point all mankind recognized and observed the Sabbath.”
Then you said, “Your certainly free to hold that opinion, but I have to wonder why you hold when there is no mention of it in the bible.”
Apparently in all known ancient languages one week consisted of 7 days. This indicates quite clearly that they all must have known about the creation story and how God rested on the 7th. day. Otherwise some ancient languages would have had 5 or 6 day weeks or 8 or 9 day weeks or whatever.
Why would all of these ancient peoples have agreed with each other that a week consisted of 7 days?? I can’t see any other explanation.
I said, “After Abraham developed his faith he still had commandments from God that he had to follow.”
Then you said, “That’s true and he obeyed the commandments that were addressed to him (leaving his homeland getting circumcised, offering his son as a sacrifice etc..)”
Gen. 26:4-5 “I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give your offspring all these lands….Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my commands, my statutes, and my laws.”
Not only did Abraham follow the commandments you mentioned above about leaving his homeland, getting circumcised, offering his son as a sacrifice etc.. But he also had statutes and laws that he had to follow.
So the promise wasn’t solely based on his faith even after he developed his faith he was expected to follow statutes and laws. (Though the bible doesn’t clearly spell out what they were I believe we can reasonably guess that the 10 commandments including observing the Sabbath were part of the statutes and laws that he was required to follow).
That’s why I don’t think it is unreasonable that God would still expect us today to follow the 10 commandments, a limited form of Noah’s law, and the specific commandments of Jesus. But of course this is just my opinion.
You also said, “Obedience is knowing what laws are addressed to us.”
From what I can see the only reason you don’t believe the 10 commandments including the 4th. about the Sabbath don’t apply to us is because of your understanding of what Paul wrote. I have my doubts about Paul’s teachings regarding the law and Robert has his own way of interpreting what Paul wrote which is different from yours.
So it would seem that obedience depends on each individuals conscience and what seems right or feels right to them. There is no specific statement in the books and letters that I am convinced are reliable stating that the 10 commandments or the the minimal Noahide laws don’t apply to us anymore. (Though I can see how you could get this interpretation from what Paul wrote).
I still don’t really understand how you can say when Jesus said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot or iota of the law to disappear” that he was referring to the 10 commandments and yet still not agree with me and Robert.
Heaven and Earth are still here therefore the 10 commandments must also still be here as well. I don’t see how Jesus could have been any clearer he even says this on more than one occasion and in different ways.
You also said, “Likewise we are free to observe or not observe the Sabbath based on our own decision.”
I agree. As long as you keep one day a week free from your normal work of the week and spend the day being close to God and contemplating the things of God then you are following the spirit behind the 4th. commandment. (I choose to do this on the actual Sabbath day itself).
You also said, “Any command that is made because it is a law (Mosaic, Noahide, or otherwise) would go against the whole point being made here, which is that God purifies the heart by faith and not laws.”
But once your heart is purified and your faith is solid that doesn’t necessarily mean you no longer have to follow God’s laws (no matter how you might interpret them). You and I just interpret them differently.
I said, “What most modern readers don’t realize is that these minimal Noahide laws were a difficult thing for the Gentiles of that time to follow.”
You then said, “The Jews must have been able to find meat that wasn’t sacrificed to idols.”
From what I have read Jews that lived among the Gentiles in the time of Jesus for all practical purposes had to be vegetarians. Jews of the diaspora usually lived in small communities that could not support a full time Jewish butcher to prepare kosher meat for the community.
Even today many Jews will not eat meat that they don’t consider to be kosher. This tradition goes right back to biblical times.
You also said, “That’s why Hebrews says there remains a Sabbath rest to the people of God.”
Unfortunately I haven’t gotten around to reading Hebrews yet. To be quite honest the last week or so has been very hectic and I haven’t had a chance to do any reading. I still have a ton of stuff to unpack…
The observance of a seven day week may somehow reflect God’s creation, but that doesn’t mean they observed the Sabbath on the seventh day, just as our culture has a seven day week but largely ignores God.
Keep in mind that the verse you quoted is addressing Isaac, and saying that he would be blessed because Abraham was faithful to the covenant he made with God. That is not saying that Abraham was blessed because he obeyed. It clearly said that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6). The promise of God was because of Abraham’s faith, and his obedience afterward was a result.
No, I don’t believe it applies to us because of the many Scriptures I’ve presented that say that they were addressed to Israel.
I said Jesus was referring to the whole Law of Moses, which includes, but is not limited to the Ten Commandments. Also, he qualified that statement with, “until all be fulfilled.”
Then it is not “mandatory” to observe the seventh day, which is what the Law stated, both in and out of the Ten Commandments. This is actually the type of thing I’m talking about.
I never said you no longer have to follow God’s Laws. I just said that His laws to us are not the same as the laws to Israel. And you’re correct, we just have different interpretations of what laws are addressed to us.
I understand how much work is involved with moving. I just did it myself a few weeks ago, and still haven’t finished unpacking. Good luck with the new place.
“No, I don’t believe it applies to us because of the many Scriptures I’ve presented that say that they were addressed to Israel.”
Mark
You might very well be right but First you need to define “us’.
If you are Applying “us” to those who havent joined themselves to Israel then i think you are right.
But if you are defining “us” as all mankind including physical and spiritual Israel then you are wrong.
what makes me think that is Revelation 7 in light of Revelation 20:11-22:5 where i see Gentiles receiving salvation without partaking in the 1000 years reign of Jesus during the Sabbath rest of God.
The multitude in Revelation 7 have been giving salvation and nowhere does imply that these have partaked of the Promise to Abraham of Physical Promised Land. Its quite the opposite because it does state where theses did come from.
If you old covenant could not disanul the promise to Abraham,Isaac,Jacob and Joseph of a physical possession then neither could the New covenant which provides salvation to All based on a better promise. Gods eighth Day AKA New Heaven and Earth
This doesnt mean the gentiles(those who havent joined themselves to Israel and those who have seperated themselves from Israel) shouldnt look to Gods law for Morals to live by.
Mark C. (msg. 198)
You said, “I understand how much work is involved in moving. I just did it myself a few weeks ago, and still haven’t finished unpacking. Good luck with your new place.”
My legs are still sore from carrying everything up the stairs to my apartment. I was hoping to get all my unpacking done this long weekend but there is still several boxes to unpack and I have to go out this evening. I really like my new place but there is not nearly as much storage room and I have no idea where I’m going to put some stuff (might just end up leaving some things in boxes).
You never realize how much stuff you have until it’s time to move…
Thomas,
I can definitely relate!