|
Believe it or not, some scholars are presenting that Yeshua’s strong words in Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother… he cannot be my disciple” as somewhat of an abrogation of the ethics demanded in the Torah. Just in case you ever run into this, here is brief but easy rebuttal.
First off, the hate in Luke 14 is comparative. Even one’s own life is said to be hated in the verse, but the sense should obviously be to love one’s life (as well as family) less than you love Messiah. The parallel text in Matthew 10:37 solidifies this, “He who loves father or mother *more than me* is not worthy of me.” Yeshua elsewhere reprimanded some Pharisees for not honoring their parents (Mt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10), even alluding to Exodus 21:15, 17 where striking or cursing a parent deserved the death penalty. Secondarily, the Law of Yahweh actually teaches the same ethic - all the way around - as Yeshua. This shouldn’t surprise us as Yeshua’s mission was to be a teacher of Law (Mt. 5:17-19). Deuteronomy 33:8-9 praises the tribe of Levi for disregarding their parents and other family members in order to keep Yahweh’s word. This is seen specifically in Exodus 32:26-29 where the sons of Levi literally killed their own family at the command of Yahweh (due to their idolatry and refusal to repent). See also Deuteronomy 13:6-11. Also, the High Priest (Lev. 21:11) or Nazir (Num. 6:7) were not allowed to defile their position for either father or mother. Their duties, in this case, overrode the 5th commandment. The extent some go to abrogate the perfect Law of Yahweh (Ps. 19:7) that is better than gold and sweeter than honey (Ps. 19:10) is astounding. Yeshua was a prophet, and like all prophets, he called the people to repentance (back to the Law; 2 Kings 17:13). He was and is the preeminent Torah-teacher.
0 Comments
I came across a helpful parallel of sorts to an oft debated text, Genesis 9:3. If you obey the Biblical Dietary Laws (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14) then I'm sure you've heard it said that those laws did not exist prior to the time frame of Leviticus 11. People often think Yahweh's Law didn't come about until around the Mount Sinai time, but there's a host of laws found in a careful reading of Genesis. I'm not saying every single law in Leviticus existed previously in Genesis (some came about at a later time due to certain circumstances), but it is error to believe those who served Yahweh back in Genesis didn't have any commandments to keep. You might open up to Genesis 26:1-5 for verification.
It's been told to me (more than a few times) that Noah was allowed to eat any and all animals because in Genesis 9:3 (HCSB) Yahweh tells him, "Every living creature will be food for you; as [I gave] the green plants, I have given you everything." They end up saying something like, "Matthew, don't fight the words every and everything." Of course I'm not interested in fighting what any Scripture says, but I am interested in understanding words in their own context, and the wider context of the Flood Account shows that clean an unclean designations (for animals) existed (Genesis 7:2; 8:20). Some try to say this was only for animal sacrifice, but that dismisses the connection between an animal sacrifice and human consumption of meat. Abel's offering from the flock was a firstborn offering (Genesis 4:4) and such an offering could be eaten by the worshiper who brought the offering (Deuteronomy 15:19-23). So if Abel was offering a clean, firstborn flock animal, he ate that clean animal. The way I used to explain it to my children (when they were all little and lived at home) was: If Mama bakes a batch of cookies and later puts them in a bowl or cookie jar, and I wake up the next morning and they're all gone, and I ask, "Who ate ALL the cookies?" Am I talking about all the cookies in the world, or even all the cookies in our town? Of course not; the word "all" is defined by the context in which it is used. I'm speaking of all the cookies that Mama baked *for our family* the day previously. Case in point, the words "every" and "everything" should be understood in the context of the clean verses unclean designations earlier in Genesis 7-8. On top of this, Genesis 6-7 has several uses of "all" and "every" that are limited in scope (just like the cookie illustration above). In Genesis 6:13, "Elohim said to Noah, 'I have decided to put an end to all flesh," yet Noah, his family, and a bunch of animals aren't part of the "all flesh." In Genesis 6:19 He tells Noah, "Bring into the ark two of every living thing of all flesh," yet this is only speaking of animal life, in spite of the use of "every living thing," and "all flesh." In Genesis 8:22 Yahweh says to Himself, "I will never again strike down every living thing as I have done," but we know from reading the account that Yahweh did not strike down "every living thing," because Noah, his family, and several animals survived the flood (being on the ark). We read the words "all" and "every" and have no problem interpreting them in context, because that is how we understand said words normally. But my goodness is Genesis 9:3 camped out on by some who are so bent on wanting to eat pork and shrimp. I think what is said by Yahweh to Noah in Genesis 9:3 is said due to no animals being eaten while on the ark. If you look at Genesis 6:21 carefully, mankind and the animals ate the same vegetarian diet while on the ark (for around a year; compare Genesis 7:11 with 8:13-16). So it makes sense that after a year of not eating animals, Yahweh would then speak to Noah about there being fear and terror felt by the living creatures designed for food for mankind (the clean ones). The parallel verse I ran into the other day while studying (something completely different) was Deuteronomy 14:26, a verse pertaining to the worshiper of Yahweh partaking of his tithe during an annual festival. The verse (HCSB) says "You may spend the money on anything you want: cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or anything you desire. You are to feast there in the presence of Yahweh your Elohim and rejoice with your family." Did you catch it? "Anything you want," and "anything you desire." We read those two phrases and I think most of us realize that they mean "anything within the confines of the Torah." The anything is even defined for us in the context with cattle, sheep, wine, or beer - items for food and drink, but I believe other items not mentioned are also in view (like grains or olive oil), so long as said items do not violate the Torah (instructions, teachings) Yahweh gave to His people as a whole. If someone says "every living thing" in Genesis 9:3 means pig, camel, rat, vulture, etc. then we could just as easily say that "anything you desire" in Deuteronomy 14:26 has no limits - the worshiper could forget about Yahweh's complete instruction for the Feast and just purchase anything his flesh desired, even if such desires would normally be sinful. It's really silly, and I think most everyone will be able to see this in Deuteronomy 14:26... but I'm sad to say that many people will still not be able to see this in Genesis 9:3. May Yahweh help us to handle His word properly, and be honest and serious with each surrounding context. Sometimes people begin to reject Yeshua of Nazareth because they think he’s competing with YHWH for their worship. Some believers resort to saying that Yeshua is YHWH, but I think there’s a better, more Scriptural approach.
YHWH is a jealous Mighty One (Ex. 20:5) and we should have no mighty ones before Him (Ex. 20:3), but He does commission, send, and authorize agents to work on His behalf. Prophet Moshe is a good example. He was sent directly by YHWH, and the Israelites were required to believe in him. It is written that YHWH brought the Israelites out of Egypt (Ex. 20:2), but YHWH said himself that Moshe would bring the Israelites out of Egypt (Ex. 3:12). Exodus 14:31 shows that after the Red Sea crossing, the people of Israel believed in YHWH and His servant Moshe. There was no such thing as a faithful Israelite that rejected Moshe. In Numbers 12 Moshe’s sister Miriam was struck with leprosy for speaking against Moshe. In Exodus 34:29-35 YHWH even shared some of His glory with Moshe. After Moshe spoke directly with YHWH (receiving the commandments), his face shone. From that point, whenever Moshe spoke YHWH’s words to Israel, he would speak with an uncovered face to show the power and authority of YHWH through him. The law of YHWH is even called the law of Moshe (Josh. 23:6). It was not a sin for the Israelites to revere Moshe. They did not view him as being YHWH Almighty, but they held him in high esteem as YHWH’s primary messenger and agent. He was a mighty one among the people. This helps to show how and why Yeshua is spoken so highly of later in Scripture. He too was a unique agent of YHWH (Mt. 3:15-17), upon whom YHWH placed a great amount of power and authority in (Jn. 3:34-36). We honor him as the appointed Messiah (anointed one) and Son of Elohim (Mt. 14:33), which was a title throughout the Tanach for priests and kings of Israel. The Torah even speaks of a “prophet like Moshe” rising up from among the brothers in Israel (Deut. 18:15, 18-19). YHWH places His own words in this prophet’s mouth so that a rejection of this prophet brings destruction (Acts 3:22-26). It is interesting that the author of Hebrews says Yeshua is worthy of more glory than Moshe (Heb. 3:3), as a Son over his own house (Heb. 3:6). Yeshua always loved righteousness and always hated lawlessness; this is why his Mighty One (YHWH) anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellow brothers (Heb. 1:9). YHWH loves it when we honor His beloved Son. Don’t let anyone deceive you into rejecting Yeshua. He is worthy of glory, honor, and worship as the unique Son of Elohim. He’s the greatest man - image of the Almighty - to ever walk this earth. Sometimes it is argued that genealogical descent can only be traced through a male, but in 1 Chronicles 2:34-35 (in the genealogy of Judah, vs. 3) we read this:
“Sheshan had no sons, only daughters, but he did have an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai.” Then in verse 36 the genealogy continues through Attai (who fathers Nathan). So there is precedent in the Hebrew Bible that a genealogy could at times be counted through a female in the absence of a male. This is an important backdrop for tracing Yeshua’s genealogy (from King David) through his mother Miriam. It can be argued quite convincingly that the genealogy in the gospel of Matthew is through Miriam, based upon the phrase (Mt. 1:16a), “Joseph the *husband* of Mary” being a lacking, alternate translation that reads better as “Joseph the *father* of Mary.” The Greek text reads ”aner,” which does mean husband in certain contexts, but it is not limited to a husband. The word basically carries with it the idea of male/man (contrasted with female/woman). The REV Bible commentary states in part on Matthew 1:16: “The Greek is anēr (#435 ἀνήρ), and means “an adult human male.” Anēr is generally assumed to mean “husband” in this verse, but that cannot be the case. For one thing, the list of the three sets of 14 generations that go from Abraham to Christ (vv. 2-16), makes this impossible. If Joseph is the husband of Mary, there would only be 13 generations in the last list of “14 generations.” Also, the Aramaic text reads differently in this verse than it does in verse 19, and in verse 19 Joseph is unmistakably referred to as the “husband” of Mary. The difference in the vocabulary indicates a difference in the relationship.” Full note here: https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Matthew/chapter1/16 So aner *could mean* “father” or “guardian” in the Greek of Matthew (1:16), and Aramaic manuscripts of Matthew’s gospel read differently in comparing 1:16 (gavra) with 1:19 (bala; vs. 19’s Joseph is definitely speaking of a husband). It’s also interesting that two manuscripts of a Hebrew Matthew (in the Shem Tov tradition) read “avi” (father) in Matthew 1:16. It shouldn’t surprise us that more than one Joseph is listed in Matthew 1, as more than one Jacob is as well (compare vss. 2 and 16). Joseph was a prominent name in Israel. This also pairs well with other women being mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy (which wasn’t normally the case). Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (though the latter not by name) are all there in Matthew 1, so listing Mary/Miriam fits this pattern in verse 16. There’s much more to this, but I’m just beginning to collect all my thoughts and studies for the last three weeks in writing, so I’ll end with one closing point. Paul writes in Romans 1:3 that Yeshua was *born of* a descendant of David according to the flesh, and Matthew 1:16 speaks of “Mary, from whom *was born* Yeshua.” I think Paul was referencing Yeshua’s birth mother in Romans. |
AuthorBlog by Matthew Janzen. Lover of Yahweh, Yeshua, my wife and 5 children. All else is commentary. Archives
February 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed