Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Churches of Ekklêsia
"Churches" is a late interpolation/translation – the word used is ekklêsia (in its feminine plural form), and literally means "a regular assembly of the citizens" for the purpose of calling out or calling together an assembly or collection; or the "legislative assembly" if from classical source rather than the koine. I would suggest "congregation" or "assembly" – as the earliest Christians had no "church", but rather assembled in each others homes for biblical study and worship. The English word "Church" on the other hand is expressed in the koine as kuriakos, or kuriakon (which derive from kurios) – and since kuriakos is not used in 1 Corinthians 14:34, why render its English equivalent in the translation?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Tree of Knowledge of Tov and Ra
"Okay, here's a question that really interests me (and have never gotten a definitive answer).....so the forbidden fruit imparted some kind of knowledge/awareness. What was it?"
The bible does not state that the fruit imparted any kind of knowledge or awareness. It was simply a tree. The only difference between it and any other tree - was its restriction. Simply put, the command was important, not the tree.
He made a pronouncement decreeing it to be "out-of-bounds" for the human pair - Yhwh's right to determine and set the boundries of existence [tov and ra] for man in order to experience life, versus man's right to determine his own boundries through his own eye as if he were god and creator of himself. And so now we have waited, and watched the results of man - acting as god and creator of himself. The entire creation has suffered because of his self-declared righteousness, ego, and lack of humbleness to simply be what he was created to be. But that point has almost nearly been made - when it is finally made, there will no longer be any doubt whether man is god over himself, or simply a dismal failure at acting as god.
"I know some folks believe it was some kind of sexual awakening"
This route is usually difficult to support, as the command to them as male and female [before the tree episode], was to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth". Procreation.
".....first thing they do is go from romping like innocent children to covering their genitals and feeling awkward."
The thing to notice is [1] when man was allowing Yhwh to decide tov and ra for his own creation including man, being naked was declared "tov" and they were not ashamed, then [2] once both had already departed from listening to Yhwh and chose to listen to their own eye - selecting their own path, they decided that it was no longer "tov" - but something of which to be ashamed.
There is a noticeable shift in the text as to who was now deciding what the boundries for life were - from Yhwh as god to man - now shifted as man a god to man.
It was their third decision as gods.
Yet others say its a knowledge of 'good and evil'...in the sense that they start judging others (even though there was noone else there to judge).....
Before following through on her own decision to follow her own eye's desire regardless of the results which Yhwh had warned them about, Eve reiterated Yhwh's rule - she knew wrong from right. So did Adam.
They had sufficient knowledge to discern tov from ra regarding their life's existance because Yhwh had instructed them. As their creator and designer, of course he would know how they would function [tov] and how they would not [ra]. Man believes that he is perfectly capable of being the creator and designer of himself.
Let's suppose that a fish was created and designed to live a perfectly fine [tov] life under water. He can swim left, or right, he can mate and reproduce, he can eat, and play, and travel long distances, hide on rock outcropping, sleep when he wants, swim when he wants, do backflips, blow bubbles, chase other fish, and so on. There is only one rule. His creator warns him, do anything you like, just don't leave the water, for if you leave the water, you will die. As long as the fish obeys this one little boundry [remain in the water], he is in perfect balance, and he lives. If one day, he should purposely decide for himself that he does not need to live in water, he is better than that - why should god determine for him what the boundries are afterall - he is fish, immortal, and can act as a god unto himself. And so he begins to see that the land is a much preferable place for him - so he leaps out of the water and flops himself on dry land. Bad move. He shortly learns that he has difficulty breathing and the air and sun are drying out his scales. He flops about - struggles to perhaps get in the water. But he cannot make it.. And so he went from being tov [perfectly functional] to being ra [dysfunctional] - and the results of his decision to depart from the path laid before him by his creator [e.g., khate, he sinned] he now has become ra - and the result? Death. He dies.
Should his god be kind enough to resurrect him back to life - though the fish certainly did not deserve it - he would have learned a very valuable lesson. And so would all of the other fish who witnessed the results of his action to decide all things for himself even when he lacks perfect knowledge to do so.
The bible does not state that the fruit imparted any kind of knowledge or awareness. It was simply a tree. The only difference between it and any other tree - was its restriction. Simply put, the command was important, not the tree.
He made a pronouncement decreeing it to be "out-of-bounds" for the human pair - Yhwh's right to determine and set the boundries of existence [tov and ra] for man in order to experience life, versus man's right to determine his own boundries through his own eye as if he were god and creator of himself. And so now we have waited, and watched the results of man - acting as god and creator of himself. The entire creation has suffered because of his self-declared righteousness, ego, and lack of humbleness to simply be what he was created to be. But that point has almost nearly been made - when it is finally made, there will no longer be any doubt whether man is god over himself, or simply a dismal failure at acting as god.
"I know some folks believe it was some kind of sexual awakening"
This route is usually difficult to support, as the command to them as male and female [before the tree episode], was to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth". Procreation.
".....first thing they do is go from romping like innocent children to covering their genitals and feeling awkward."
The thing to notice is [1] when man was allowing Yhwh to decide tov and ra for his own creation including man, being naked was declared "tov" and they were not ashamed, then [2] once both had already departed from listening to Yhwh and chose to listen to their own eye - selecting their own path, they decided that it was no longer "tov" - but something of which to be ashamed.
There is a noticeable shift in the text as to who was now deciding what the boundries for life were - from Yhwh as god to man - now shifted as man a god to man.
It was their third decision as gods.
Yet others say its a knowledge of 'good and evil'...in the sense that they start judging others (even though there was noone else there to judge).....
Before following through on her own decision to follow her own eye's desire regardless of the results which Yhwh had warned them about, Eve reiterated Yhwh's rule - she knew wrong from right. So did Adam.
They had sufficient knowledge to discern tov from ra regarding their life's existance because Yhwh had instructed them. As their creator and designer, of course he would know how they would function [tov] and how they would not [ra]. Man believes that he is perfectly capable of being the creator and designer of himself.
Let's suppose that a fish was created and designed to live a perfectly fine [tov] life under water. He can swim left, or right, he can mate and reproduce, he can eat, and play, and travel long distances, hide on rock outcropping, sleep when he wants, swim when he wants, do backflips, blow bubbles, chase other fish, and so on. There is only one rule. His creator warns him, do anything you like, just don't leave the water, for if you leave the water, you will die. As long as the fish obeys this one little boundry [remain in the water], he is in perfect balance, and he lives. If one day, he should purposely decide for himself that he does not need to live in water, he is better than that - why should god determine for him what the boundries are afterall - he is fish, immortal, and can act as a god unto himself. And so he begins to see that the land is a much preferable place for him - so he leaps out of the water and flops himself on dry land. Bad move. He shortly learns that he has difficulty breathing and the air and sun are drying out his scales. He flops about - struggles to perhaps get in the water. But he cannot make it.. And so he went from being tov [perfectly functional] to being ra [dysfunctional] - and the results of his decision to depart from the path laid before him by his creator [e.g., khate, he sinned] he now has become ra - and the result? Death. He dies.
Should his god be kind enough to resurrect him back to life - though the fish certainly did not deserve it - he would have learned a very valuable lesson. And so would all of the other fish who witnessed the results of his action to decide all things for himself even when he lacks perfect knowledge to do so.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Naham - Regret
Jeremiah 42:10 presents the Hebrew word naham (or nacham as transliterated by some) – for which the NSRV (as well as the NLT) has chosen (ruefully?) to translate as "sorry". The KJV and its loyalists stick with the equally vague "repent", while a few others tinker with "relent", while the NIV gets much closer with "grieved" though they have misunderstood the associated verb.
The JPS Tanakh more closely offers "regret", as does the NWT, but the NWT gives better treatment to the associate verb (in Hebrew, aspect is grammaticalized and but not tense) presenting "for I shall certainly feel regret …" versus the JPS's "For I regret …" [I'll save that for some other discussion].
None seems to be entirely adequate, though each offers some portion of the concrete sense of the Hebrew word naham. The JPS and the NWT appears to be the closest with "regret" (though relent would not be an entirely bad choice if not for its implication of leniency for simple leniency sake). I do take note of the slim difference between sorry [www.answers.com] and regret [www.answers.com], though regret tends to imply a more adequate sense of loss and personal distress about a desire for things which should have or could be different - more towards situational and circumstantial empathy, providing comfort, support, quite often absent of any personal cause or attribution of mistake, and most often meaning the mere opposite of pleasurable satisfaction and rejoicing – versus the ordinary sympathy commonly associated with being sorry in an apologetic sense for a personally accepted mistake.
But sorry, repent, relent, and even regret, do not seem altogether adequate for the concrete application of the Hebrew word naham.Naham is never used of man's "repentance" towards the will of God, the word used is always shub – meaning to turn, as in turn away from and find the correct path.M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia offers this, "God himself is said to repent; but this can only be understood of his altering his conduct towards his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or infliction of evil – which change in the divine conduct is founded on a change in his creatures; and thus speaking after the manner of men, God is said to repent".
In fact the origin of the root of naham reflects the idea of "breathing deeply", hence the physical display of one's feelings and emotions, usually compassion, empathy, or comfort. The root occurs in Ugaritic, and is used almost exclusive as "to console or comfort and support", and it is noted in the Hebrew proper names such as Nehemiah [Jah comforts], Nahum, [comforter, encourager]and Menehem [one who comforts].
The Hebrew word was likely quite well known to every pious Jew living in exile as he recalled the opening words of Isaiah's "Book of Consolation", reading "nahamu nahamu 'ammi" [comfort ye, comfort ye, my people]. People were comforted (naham) for the death of a child (2 Samuel 12:24), a teenager (Genesis 37:35), a mother (Genesis 24:67), a wife (Genesis 38:12) et al.Of some interest, it is noted that God's "compassion (nihum, a derative of naham) grows warm and tender" for his people (Hos 11:8).
God's righteous "standards" remain constant, stable, unchanging, free from fluctuation (Mal 3:6, James 1:17). No circumstances can cause him to change his mind about these standards; to turn from them, or to abandon them. However, as indicated by M'Clintock and Strong's blurb above, the attitudes and reactions of his intelligent creatures toward those "standards" and towards God's application of them can be good (tov) or bad (ra).
If good, this is pleasing to God; if bad, it causes regret [naham]. The coming of regret stems from compassion and empathy towards his creation, and is always associated when used of God to a simultaneous promise to re-establish, re-build, and restore – to make or assign new heirs to his creations.Such was the case in the deluge – regret [naham] set in, and a remnant was offered salvation from the coming disaster if they would act accordingly (build an ark); such was the case with Moses when regret set in regarding those God had provided escape from Egypt and God had decided to re-establish from Moses alone; such also was the case when a group of those who remained in Jerusalem (to undergo destruction by divine judgment) had apparently decided to "turn-back" and requested Jeremiah intercede on their behalf pleading that "in behalf od all this remnant" that "Jehovah your God tell us the way in which we should walk and the thing that we should do" – Jer 42:2-3.
And it was this action which brought God to naham – the attitude and reactions of the remnant in Jerusalem – and to offer through naham a new start, with safety, rather than destruction in Jerusalem, requiring only that they remain in Jerusalem, and not flee to Egypt.
In the paleo-Hebrew, naham is comprised of three characters: first the nun, [n] which is the ancient pictograph of a seed sprout, representing the concrete ideas of continuance to a new generation, perpetuation, offspring and heir; and second the hhets, [ch, hh] the ancient pictograph of the nomadic tent wall, the function of which was to provide protection to the inhabitants inside from the elements; and lastly the mah, or mem, [m] an ancient picture of waves of water, meaning liquid, water sea and mighty, often chaotic and unpredictable, strife with raw emotion emanating from the heart.
Combined [nchm, or nacham, naham] gives the best sense of the Hebrew concrete meaning, to provide divine protection, like a wall, removed from chaotic for the purpose of preservation of those to become heir to his very kingdom. The very thing he offers to the remnant through Jeremiah in Jerusalem. To the degree that mankind "repents and returns" [shub], so to does Jehovah regret [naham] – offers protection and a kingdom to his creation, those of his seed. Shub brings no apology from God, but it does bring naham, comfort, preservation, a kingdom - or as Jeremiah 42:10b, c puts it:
The JPS Tanakh more closely offers "regret", as does the NWT, but the NWT gives better treatment to the associate verb (in Hebrew, aspect is grammaticalized and but not tense) presenting "for I shall certainly feel regret …" versus the JPS's "For I regret …" [I'll save that for some other discussion].
None seems to be entirely adequate, though each offers some portion of the concrete sense of the Hebrew word naham. The JPS and the NWT appears to be the closest with "regret" (though relent would not be an entirely bad choice if not for its implication of leniency for simple leniency sake). I do take note of the slim difference between sorry [www.answers.com] and regret [www.answers.com], though regret tends to imply a more adequate sense of loss and personal distress about a desire for things which should have or could be different - more towards situational and circumstantial empathy, providing comfort, support, quite often absent of any personal cause or attribution of mistake, and most often meaning the mere opposite of pleasurable satisfaction and rejoicing – versus the ordinary sympathy commonly associated with being sorry in an apologetic sense for a personally accepted mistake.
But sorry, repent, relent, and even regret, do not seem altogether adequate for the concrete application of the Hebrew word naham.Naham is never used of man's "repentance" towards the will of God, the word used is always shub – meaning to turn, as in turn away from and find the correct path.M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia offers this, "God himself is said to repent; but this can only be understood of his altering his conduct towards his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or infliction of evil – which change in the divine conduct is founded on a change in his creatures; and thus speaking after the manner of men, God is said to repent".
In fact the origin of the root of naham reflects the idea of "breathing deeply", hence the physical display of one's feelings and emotions, usually compassion, empathy, or comfort. The root occurs in Ugaritic, and is used almost exclusive as "to console or comfort and support", and it is noted in the Hebrew proper names such as Nehemiah [Jah comforts], Nahum, [comforter, encourager]and Menehem [one who comforts].
The Hebrew word was likely quite well known to every pious Jew living in exile as he recalled the opening words of Isaiah's "Book of Consolation", reading "nahamu nahamu 'ammi" [comfort ye, comfort ye, my people]. People were comforted (naham) for the death of a child (2 Samuel 12:24), a teenager (Genesis 37:35), a mother (Genesis 24:67), a wife (Genesis 38:12) et al.Of some interest, it is noted that God's "compassion (nihum, a derative of naham) grows warm and tender" for his people (Hos 11:8).
God's righteous "standards" remain constant, stable, unchanging, free from fluctuation (Mal 3:6, James 1:17). No circumstances can cause him to change his mind about these standards; to turn from them, or to abandon them. However, as indicated by M'Clintock and Strong's blurb above, the attitudes and reactions of his intelligent creatures toward those "standards" and towards God's application of them can be good (tov) or bad (ra).
If good, this is pleasing to God; if bad, it causes regret [naham]. The coming of regret stems from compassion and empathy towards his creation, and is always associated when used of God to a simultaneous promise to re-establish, re-build, and restore – to make or assign new heirs to his creations.Such was the case in the deluge – regret [naham] set in, and a remnant was offered salvation from the coming disaster if they would act accordingly (build an ark); such was the case with Moses when regret set in regarding those God had provided escape from Egypt and God had decided to re-establish from Moses alone; such also was the case when a group of those who remained in Jerusalem (to undergo destruction by divine judgment) had apparently decided to "turn-back" and requested Jeremiah intercede on their behalf pleading that "in behalf od all this remnant" that "Jehovah your God tell us the way in which we should walk and the thing that we should do" – Jer 42:2-3.
And it was this action which brought God to naham – the attitude and reactions of the remnant in Jerusalem – and to offer through naham a new start, with safety, rather than destruction in Jerusalem, requiring only that they remain in Jerusalem, and not flee to Egypt.
In the paleo-Hebrew, naham is comprised of three characters: first the nun, [n] which is the ancient pictograph of a seed sprout, representing the concrete ideas of continuance to a new generation, perpetuation, offspring and heir; and second the hhets, [ch, hh] the ancient pictograph of the nomadic tent wall, the function of which was to provide protection to the inhabitants inside from the elements; and lastly the mah, or mem, [m] an ancient picture of waves of water, meaning liquid, water sea and mighty, often chaotic and unpredictable, strife with raw emotion emanating from the heart.
Combined [nchm, or nacham, naham] gives the best sense of the Hebrew concrete meaning, to provide divine protection, like a wall, removed from chaotic for the purpose of preservation of those to become heir to his very kingdom. The very thing he offers to the remnant through Jeremiah in Jerusalem. To the degree that mankind "repents and returns" [shub], so to does Jehovah regret [naham] – offers protection and a kingdom to his creation, those of his seed. Shub brings no apology from God, but it does bring naham, comfort, preservation, a kingdom - or as Jeremiah 42:10b, c puts it:
"I will also build you up and I shall not tear you down, and I will plant you and I shall not uproot you; for I shall certainly feel regret [naham] over the calamity that I have caused to you."
khate'
The Hebrew word translated as 'sin' is khate, the root being khaw-taw', which in its concrete meaning meant to miss the mark; as used Biblically, it refers not to some physical or spiritual separation from God, but refers by usage (as a verb) to conduct, any conduct not in harmony with Jehovah's standards.
It has a close connection to tsadiyq (righteous) commonly paralleled with the word "rasha". Rasha is usually translated as "wicked" but has a concrete meaning of "to depart from the path and become lost". From this we can conclude that a tsadiyq is one who remains of the path. The path is the course through life which God has outlined for us in his word. Also connected is "good", or "tov", the first use of which is in Genesis chapter one where calls his handiwork "good".
It should always be remembered that the Hebrews often relate descriptions to functionality. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional, kind of like a well oiled and tuned machine – in contrast is "ra". These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of "good" and "evil". While "ra" is often translated as evil it is best translated as "dysfunctional". Sin is missing the established mark, by straying off the established "path" given to mankind by his creator – resulting in man being "dysfunctional" – or as the Bible states, the wages of sin is death.
Faith and the Hebrew Emunah
The Hebrew root aman means firm, something that is supported or secure. This word is used in Isaiah 22:23 for a nail that is fastened to a "secure" place. Derived from this root is the word emun meaning a craftsman. A craftsman is one who is firm and secure in his talent. Also derived from aman is the word emunah meaning firmness, something or someone that is firm in their actions.
When the Hebrew word emunah is translated as "faith" misconceptions of its meaning can often occur. Faith is usually perceived as a "knowing" while the Hebrew emunah is a firm action.To have faith in God is not knowing that God exists or knowing that he will act, rather it is that the one with emunah will act with firmness toward God's will. Faith and action (or works) are respresented in a united fashion - taken alone - each are impotent.
In our western minds faith is a mental exercise in knowing that someone or something exists or will act. For instance, if we say "I have faith in God" we are saying "I know that God exists and do what he says he will do".The Hebrew word for faith (emunah) however is an action oriented word meaning "support". This is important because the Western concept of faith places the action on the one you have faith in, such as "faith in God".
But, the Hebrew word emunah places the action on the one who "supports God".It is not knowing that God will act, but rather I will do what I can to support God.This idea of support for the word emunah can be seen in Exodus 17:12."But Moses' hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady (emunah) until the going down of the sun."It is the support/emunah of Aaron and Hur that held of Moses' arms, not the support/emunah of Moses.
When we say "I have faith in God", perhaps it would be more appropriate to be thinking "I will do what I can to support God". Is this though so really different from the Greek Christian teaching?
In Hebrews 11:1-8, Paul states that, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them. By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God's word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear."Two examples of "faith" given by Paul then include (Hebrews 11:7,8) ...
"By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household ... " – He performed an act in support of Jehovah."
By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed in going out into a place he was destined to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, although not knowing where he was going. By faith he resided as an alien in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, and dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, the builder and maker of which [city] is God. – He performed an act in support of Jehovah.
In both examples, "faith" was not knowing that God will act, but rather what these persons did to support God. Is this not the same idea as expressed in the ancient Hebrew word for faith "emunah"?The Bible says: "A man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law." It also says: "A man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone." Which is right? Are we declared righteous by faith or by works? — Romans 3:28; James 2:24.
The harmonious answer from the Bible is that both are correct, and both have much in common with "emunah".
For centuries the Law that God gave through Moses had required Jewish worshipers to make specific sacrifices and offerings, to observe festival days, and to conform to dietary and other requirements.According to the Christian Greek Scriptures, such "works of law," or simply "works," were no longer necessary after Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice.—Romans 10:4. But the fact that these works performed under the Mosaic Law were replaced by Jesus' superlative sacrifice did not mean to ignore the Bible's instructions did it? It says: "How much more will the blood of the Christ . . . cleanse our consciences from [the older] dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?" — Hebrews 9:14.
How do we "render sacred service to the living God"? Among other things, the Bible tells us to combat the works of the flesh, to resist the world's immorality, and to avoid its snares. It says: "Fight the fine fight of the faith," put off "the sin that easily entangles us," and "run with endurance the race that is set before us, as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus." And the Bible urges us not to 'get tired and give out in our souls.'—1 Timothy 6:12; Hebrews 12:1-3; Galatians 5:19-21.
We do not earn salvation by doing these things, for no human could ever do enough to merit such an astounding blessing. But does one really have "faith" or "emunah" if we fail to demonstrate our love and obedience (our support to God) by doing the things that the Bible says God and Jesus want us to do?Without works to demonstrate our faith (our "emunah" or support for God and his purpose), our claim to follow Jesus would fall far short, for the Bible clearly states: "Faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself." — James 2:17.
Do you not need to know, intimately then, the revealed will of God in order to fully and completely support him? In order to invoke "emunah" – one needs to know what actions are supporting actions, and which are not.I wonder if the average "Christian" even gives this much thought – it seems I always hear from Christendom about what God can do for you, or for me, or for one's life or peace of mind ...But this is not faith as it anticipates regarding what God can do for us, when perhaps we should be thinking more about what we are supposed to be doing for him (emunah) ... in the way and form which he requires regardless of our personal situation, gain or loss.
When the Hebrew word emunah is translated as "faith" misconceptions of its meaning can often occur. Faith is usually perceived as a "knowing" while the Hebrew emunah is a firm action.To have faith in God is not knowing that God exists or knowing that he will act, rather it is that the one with emunah will act with firmness toward God's will. Faith and action (or works) are respresented in a united fashion - taken alone - each are impotent.
In our western minds faith is a mental exercise in knowing that someone or something exists or will act. For instance, if we say "I have faith in God" we are saying "I know that God exists and do what he says he will do".The Hebrew word for faith (emunah) however is an action oriented word meaning "support". This is important because the Western concept of faith places the action on the one you have faith in, such as "faith in God".
But, the Hebrew word emunah places the action on the one who "supports God".It is not knowing that God will act, but rather I will do what I can to support God.This idea of support for the word emunah can be seen in Exodus 17:12."But Moses' hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady (emunah) until the going down of the sun."It is the support/emunah of Aaron and Hur that held of Moses' arms, not the support/emunah of Moses.
When we say "I have faith in God", perhaps it would be more appropriate to be thinking "I will do what I can to support God". Is this though so really different from the Greek Christian teaching?
In Hebrews 11:1-8, Paul states that, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them. By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God's word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear."Two examples of "faith" given by Paul then include (Hebrews 11:7,8) ...
"By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household ... " – He performed an act in support of Jehovah."
By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed in going out into a place he was destined to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, although not knowing where he was going. By faith he resided as an alien in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, and dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, the builder and maker of which [city] is God. – He performed an act in support of Jehovah.
In both examples, "faith" was not knowing that God will act, but rather what these persons did to support God. Is this not the same idea as expressed in the ancient Hebrew word for faith "emunah"?The Bible says: "A man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law." It also says: "A man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone." Which is right? Are we declared righteous by faith or by works? — Romans 3:28; James 2:24.
The harmonious answer from the Bible is that both are correct, and both have much in common with "emunah".
For centuries the Law that God gave through Moses had required Jewish worshipers to make specific sacrifices and offerings, to observe festival days, and to conform to dietary and other requirements.According to the Christian Greek Scriptures, such "works of law," or simply "works," were no longer necessary after Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice.—Romans 10:4. But the fact that these works performed under the Mosaic Law were replaced by Jesus' superlative sacrifice did not mean to ignore the Bible's instructions did it? It says: "How much more will the blood of the Christ . . . cleanse our consciences from [the older] dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?" — Hebrews 9:14.
How do we "render sacred service to the living God"? Among other things, the Bible tells us to combat the works of the flesh, to resist the world's immorality, and to avoid its snares. It says: "Fight the fine fight of the faith," put off "the sin that easily entangles us," and "run with endurance the race that is set before us, as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus." And the Bible urges us not to 'get tired and give out in our souls.'—1 Timothy 6:12; Hebrews 12:1-3; Galatians 5:19-21.
We do not earn salvation by doing these things, for no human could ever do enough to merit such an astounding blessing. But does one really have "faith" or "emunah" if we fail to demonstrate our love and obedience (our support to God) by doing the things that the Bible says God and Jesus want us to do?Without works to demonstrate our faith (our "emunah" or support for God and his purpose), our claim to follow Jesus would fall far short, for the Bible clearly states: "Faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself." — James 2:17.
Do you not need to know, intimately then, the revealed will of God in order to fully and completely support him? In order to invoke "emunah" – one needs to know what actions are supporting actions, and which are not.I wonder if the average "Christian" even gives this much thought – it seems I always hear from Christendom about what God can do for you, or for me, or for one's life or peace of mind ...But this is not faith as it anticipates regarding what God can do for us, when perhaps we should be thinking more about what we are supposed to be doing for him (emunah) ... in the way and form which he requires regardless of our personal situation, gain or loss.
Jesus Saves From ... ?
If a court of law were to put a son in prison because his father had stolen a car, the son could rightly complain: "That is not just! I did not do anything wrong." - Deuteronomy 24:16. Yet it is stated, "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all mankind because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12 – a process of procreation).
The children or offspring of Adam that were supposed to be born perfect with endless life ahead of them were brought forth with sickness, old age, and death as their prospect simply because they were procreated from an original ancestor after said ancestor had willfully departed from the protective covering from his creator that would have allowed him life everlasting (not the same as immortality, but rather an emulation, or shadowing of immortality provided by God assuming one stayed on the path established by the creator in order o enjoy this privilege). The solution that the true God provided to the problem created by Adam's departure away from God allows for each person eventually being presented an opportunity equal to that of Adam to obtain everlasting life on a paradise earth.
That cannot be done in the manner under which we were procreated – it must die, we will die. But in death mankind in unable to raise himself back to life – and the law put in place requires a life for a life – so a ransom or covering was needed.A ransom is a price paid to buy back or to bring about release from some obligation or undesirable circumstance. The basic idea of ransom is a price which covers (as in payment for damages or to satisfy justice), while redemption emphasizes the releasing accomplished as a result of the ransom paid.
According to the Christian Greek Scriptures, the most significant ransom price is the shed blood (or life) of Jesus – who was not an offspring of Adam, but Jehovah's only firstborn, directly created, "son". John refers to Jesus as monogenes theos. Not only did Jesus give up his own chance at a human life, he gave up his right to perfect offspring as well. A life for a life, an untold number or lives available to ransom the son of men (ben'adam) – making possible under the existing laws put in place by God the deliverance from death for the offspring of Adam who have been paying for sin through death because of who their father was.In the various Hebrew and Greek terms translated "ransom" and "redeem", the inherent similarities lie in the idea of a price, or thing of value, given, to effect the ransom, or redemption.
The thought of "exchange" as well as that of correspondency, equivalence, or substitution, in common in all the original language words rendered.That is, one thing is given for another, satisfying the demands of justice, and resulting in a balance of matters, as occurs in ALL things comprising the creation. It is how the creation operates, by design, a design which came into existence through the spoken word of God, which we are told never fails to come to full fruition.The Hebrew noun ko'pher comes from the verb kaphar, meaning, basically, to "cover" as in Noah's "covering" of the ark with tar (Genesis 6:14).
Kaphar, however, is used almost entirely to describe the satisfying of justice through the covering or atonement of departures from the path established for mankind by his creator (i.e., sin [www.slate.com]).The noun ko'pher refers to the thing given to accomplish this, the ransom price (Psalms 65:3, 78:38; and 79:8-9 for example). A covering corresponds to the thing ot covers, either in its form (as in a material lid, such as the covering [kappo'reth] of the ark or the covenant (Ex 25:17-25), or in its value (as in payment to cover the damages caused by an injury).At the time of Adam's sin and his being sentenced to death, his offspring or race were all unborn in his loins and so all died with him. (Compare Hebrews 7:4-10; Romans 7:9) Jesus as a perfect man, "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), had a race or offspring unborn in his loins, and when he died innocently as a perfect human this potential human race died with him. He had willingly abstained from producing a family of his own by natural procreation.
Instead, Jesus uses the authority granted by Jehovah on the basis of his ransom to give life to all those who accept this provision. - 1Cor. 15:45; compare Romans 5:15-17.Thus, Jesus was a "corresponding ransom," not for the redemption of the one sinner, Adam, but for the redemption of all mankind descended from Adam. He repurchased them so that they could become his family, his offspring, doing this by presenting the full value of his ransom sacrifice to the God of absolute justice in heaven. (Heb. 9:24).
His ransom embraces more than those of his "Bride." (his anointed). In addition to those "bought from among mankind as a first fruits" to form the heavenly congregation of 144,000, others are to benefit from his ransom sacrifice and gain everlasting life through the removal of their sins (removal of the effects of being an offspring of Adam) - such other recipients of the ransom (Acts 24:15) benefits are earthly subjects of Christ's kingdom, and as children of an "Eternal Father" (Christ versus Adam) they attain everlasting life. (Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 21:2-4, 9 10; 22:17; compare Psalm 103: 2-5)The entire arrangement manifests Jehovah's wisdom and his righteousness in perfectly balancing the scales of justice while showing underserved kindness and forgiving sins. Rom. 3:21-26.In short -Jesus "saves" from death - something we are unable to save ourselves from.
The children or offspring of Adam that were supposed to be born perfect with endless life ahead of them were brought forth with sickness, old age, and death as their prospect simply because they were procreated from an original ancestor after said ancestor had willfully departed from the protective covering from his creator that would have allowed him life everlasting (not the same as immortality, but rather an emulation, or shadowing of immortality provided by God assuming one stayed on the path established by the creator in order o enjoy this privilege). The solution that the true God provided to the problem created by Adam's departure away from God allows for each person eventually being presented an opportunity equal to that of Adam to obtain everlasting life on a paradise earth.
That cannot be done in the manner under which we were procreated – it must die, we will die. But in death mankind in unable to raise himself back to life – and the law put in place requires a life for a life – so a ransom or covering was needed.A ransom is a price paid to buy back or to bring about release from some obligation or undesirable circumstance. The basic idea of ransom is a price which covers (as in payment for damages or to satisfy justice), while redemption emphasizes the releasing accomplished as a result of the ransom paid.
According to the Christian Greek Scriptures, the most significant ransom price is the shed blood (or life) of Jesus – who was not an offspring of Adam, but Jehovah's only firstborn, directly created, "son". John refers to Jesus as monogenes theos. Not only did Jesus give up his own chance at a human life, he gave up his right to perfect offspring as well. A life for a life, an untold number or lives available to ransom the son of men (ben'adam) – making possible under the existing laws put in place by God the deliverance from death for the offspring of Adam who have been paying for sin through death because of who their father was.In the various Hebrew and Greek terms translated "ransom" and "redeem", the inherent similarities lie in the idea of a price, or thing of value, given, to effect the ransom, or redemption.
The thought of "exchange" as well as that of correspondency, equivalence, or substitution, in common in all the original language words rendered.That is, one thing is given for another, satisfying the demands of justice, and resulting in a balance of matters, as occurs in ALL things comprising the creation. It is how the creation operates, by design, a design which came into existence through the spoken word of God, which we are told never fails to come to full fruition.The Hebrew noun ko'pher comes from the verb kaphar, meaning, basically, to "cover" as in Noah's "covering" of the ark with tar (Genesis 6:14).
Kaphar, however, is used almost entirely to describe the satisfying of justice through the covering or atonement of departures from the path established for mankind by his creator (i.e., sin [www.slate.com]).The noun ko'pher refers to the thing given to accomplish this, the ransom price (Psalms 65:3, 78:38; and 79:8-9 for example). A covering corresponds to the thing ot covers, either in its form (as in a material lid, such as the covering [kappo'reth] of the ark or the covenant (Ex 25:17-25), or in its value (as in payment to cover the damages caused by an injury).At the time of Adam's sin and his being sentenced to death, his offspring or race were all unborn in his loins and so all died with him. (Compare Hebrews 7:4-10; Romans 7:9) Jesus as a perfect man, "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), had a race or offspring unborn in his loins, and when he died innocently as a perfect human this potential human race died with him. He had willingly abstained from producing a family of his own by natural procreation.
Instead, Jesus uses the authority granted by Jehovah on the basis of his ransom to give life to all those who accept this provision. - 1Cor. 15:45; compare Romans 5:15-17.Thus, Jesus was a "corresponding ransom," not for the redemption of the one sinner, Adam, but for the redemption of all mankind descended from Adam. He repurchased them so that they could become his family, his offspring, doing this by presenting the full value of his ransom sacrifice to the God of absolute justice in heaven. (Heb. 9:24).
His ransom embraces more than those of his "Bride." (his anointed). In addition to those "bought from among mankind as a first fruits" to form the heavenly congregation of 144,000, others are to benefit from his ransom sacrifice and gain everlasting life through the removal of their sins (removal of the effects of being an offspring of Adam) - such other recipients of the ransom (Acts 24:15) benefits are earthly subjects of Christ's kingdom, and as children of an "Eternal Father" (Christ versus Adam) they attain everlasting life. (Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 21:2-4, 9 10; 22:17; compare Psalm 103: 2-5)The entire arrangement manifests Jehovah's wisdom and his righteousness in perfectly balancing the scales of justice while showing underserved kindness and forgiving sins. Rom. 3:21-26.In short -Jesus "saves" from death - something we are unable to save ourselves from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
