|
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.
0 Comments
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. 1: I was raised Oneness, but didn’t start realizing it until I was a teenager. (My parents were more neutral on this in the home. We were just taught to believe in God, Jesus, live a Christian life, and love people. I am thankful for my parents and my upbringing.)
I was pretty heavy into Oneness (the belief that “God is one person who has manifested Himself in three primary ways: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”) from 1996 to 2002 (I married in 1998). My pastors were all Oneness, and in my studies I learned the “big texts.”
2: I rejected Oneness around 2003. What got me to thinking was how I kept reading about the “Father and Son” in the Bible (plus my Bible study skills were sharpening then). I didn’t understand near as much “Bible” as I do now, but I just couldn’t see how Scripture would speak of a Father and Son (the Father speaks about his Son at the baptism; the Son prays to the Father; John 17:5 “the glory I had with you”; John 8 “two witnesses”) and there not really be a Father and a Son. This is what scares me about the Oneness position, there isn’t really a Son, it’s just a different mode or manifestation. (Illustration: Clark Kent gets into a phone booth and becomes Superman. Two roles are being played, but there’s only one person.) The one person is God Almighty, so the Son is just God turning into the Son to play a role. So I accepted the Trinity, because at the time all I knew was either Oneness or Trinitarian - and I got my hand on several scholarly works on the Trinity, because I wanted the best this side had to offer. I have in-depth books/studies on Oneness and the Trinity, and of course I listened to lectures and debates constantly, always cross-referencing Scripture. A good Oneness vs. Trinity Debate is: David Bernard vs. Gene Cook, and in my opinion Bernard crushed him. If I was an outsider listening in, I would have for sure thought Bernard’s position was the Scriptural one. Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/lyGbol-YUH0 But… I still ended up on the Trinity, because I was trying to be honest with the text of Scripture. The scholarly books on the Trinity - their exegesis and explanation of key texts in Scripture - answered Bernard’s points adequately (I felt), even though Gene Cook didn’t do the best job. 3: In 2004 I began to find out there were other (minority) views, namely Arianism (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and Biblical Unitarianism. I studied both views out and the Arian position made more Biblical sense to me after watching and dissecting a debate between James White and Greg Stafford (I believe from 2003). Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/x-L3IoUq-fk My studies developed from there through 2004 and 2005, and I accepted Biblical Unitarianism (mid 2005) studying tons through Anthony Buzzard, a professor at that time of the Atlanta Bible College. Through his website I listened to lectures, debates, read books, and I’ve been at this position since 2005 (constantly developing my views and arguments). I believe it’s the most well-rounded position on the subject, taking all the Biblical data into account. Here’s some good debates and discussions on Biblical Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism: 1 - https://youtu.be/-77IYnZq8Io 2 - https://youtu.be/b0t90eJe0q4 3 - https://youtu.be/c35_uFjEbx8 4 - (A) https://youtu.be/GL476wkUhqs (B) https://youtu.be/gqh09OByaBE 5 - https://youtu.be/9z3lS7cZV5Y 4: Answering the main verses I used to use…
ANSWER: Yahweh is one (cp. Mark 12:28-32), but the actual word Lord (Adonai or Adoni) isn’t used in Deut. 6:4. Yeshua is Adoni-Master-Lord, but he was made Lord by the one Yahweh (Acts 2:36). He is the second Lord in the English versions of Psalm 110:1, and the language there is post-resurrection (Ephesians 1:20-23). For God to have a Son doesn’t contradict the Shema - God the Father is still the one of the Shema, He just has a unique Son that He sent to accomplish the greatest of all missions upon the earth.
ANSWER: Interestingly enough, this verse is never quoted in the NT as pertaining to Yeshua. (Isaiah 9:1-2 is, but verses 6-7 are not specifically.) Some scholars view it as a reference to Isaiah’s son, others say it’s King Hezekiah’s royal succession after the death of King Ahaz. “Mighty God” is the king portrayed as divinity in that he represents Elohim on earth (Ancient Near Eastern context). “Everlasting Father” represents the king’s fatherly concern over the nation. I think it’s okay to find a second fulfillment in Yeshua here, and the titles “El Gibbor” and “Aviad” can be viewed in a similar, but greater light (as in Hezekiah). No doubt Yeshua is a mighty one, look at his ministry: virgin born, sinless life, powerful teaching, healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, opening blind eyes, walking on water, predicting his own death and resurrection. Aviad - father of eternity - could be Yeshua’s fatherly concern for humanity, but it could be father in the sense of first to obtain eternal, immortal life (Gen. 4:20-21, Jubal was the father of all who play the lyre and flute). [There are additional ways to understand Isaiah 9:6; “one long Hebrew name praising Yahweh.] Trinitarians vigorously argue for “Mighty God” but explain “Father of Eternity” in a way that doesn’t conflate Yeshua with being THE Father. Oneness take them both as showing the absolute deity of Yeshua. I don’t think either position is a must.
ANSWER: Isaiah 43’s context is in the midst of the trial of the false elohim. A string of chapters where Yahweh speaks of His uniqueness as the one, true Elohim of Israel, who rescued Israel, and none of the elohim of the other nations did it. It does not mean Yahweh can’t send a savior. In the post-Pentateuch book of Judges, Ehud, Othniel, and Shamgar are called savior - yasha in Hebrew - the same word Yahweh says he alone is. Nehemiah 9:27 says Yahweh sent saviors plural to Israel. Moshe was the savior of Israel. Yeshua is the sent savior that Yahweh raised up (see Acts 5:29-31). Ultimately, all salvation comes from Yahweh. Think of a generator (Yahweh) and an extension cord (Yeshua) to your camper. You need both, but the ultimate power comes from the generator.
ANSWER: John 1:1 - ton Theon (noun) vs. Theos (adjective) in one sentence. Word = thought, speech (cp. Gen. 1 and Psalm 33). “All things were made by it” in some English translations from the Greek prior to the KJV. Illustration: blueprints in the mind of their designer. I told my young son once (5), “That Dodge caravan was at one time in the mind of its designer.” He said, “Daddy, how can that big van fit inside a man’s head?” John 10:30 - It’s not one in person here but one in unity, togetherness, mind, will, and plan. The context is about keeping the sheep, and the Father is spoken of by Yeshua as the greatest (Jn. 10:29), and the sheep were given by the Father to the Son. A similar Greek construction is found in 1 Corinthians 3:6-8). The word one still means one, but it can function as a unifier. Our English word works the same way. John 14:9 is understood easily by just reading the next verses. Yeshua is speaking of the miraculous works he is doing - the Father *in* him does the works. No doubt, there is a close relationship here, Yeshua is the greatest man to ever live, and no one will ever be as close to Yahweh as Yeshua.
ANSWER: There is a textual variant here, but it’s highly debatable (Nomina Sacra; Theos shortened and “he” or “who” look almost identical in Greek). I think “Theos” is a probable reading, but I think the understanding of manifested is key - to make known or reveal. Yahweh Elohim made himself known through the man Yeshua of Nazareth. When you look at Yeshua, it’s as close as you can get to looking at Yahweh - his character, demeanor, actions, speech, conduct.
ANSWER: First, Jesus is not the name of the Father. You can’t look at the NT and superimpose that over (back into) the OT (that’s anachronistic). So *name* of the Father in Mt28:19 is Yahweh. “And the name of the Son” does NOT have to be the same name. Look at Genesis 48:16 - name (singular) and then two names are mentioned. The baptisms in Acts are centered around calling on Yahweh (Acts 22:16) and confessing Yeshua (Acts 8, the eunuch). There’s never a case in Acts where we read of the person doing the baptism as having something specific to say (“baptismal formula”), it was the baptizee - the person being baptized - that called on Yahweh (the Father) and confessed the Son (Yeshua). [NOTE: The Holy Spirit could be better read as the beginning of verse 20, since we are taught by the Spirit of Yahweh upon our hearts and minds per John 16:13.] |
AuthorBlog by Matthew Janzen. Lover of Yahweh, Yeshua, my wife and 5 children. All else is commentary. Archives
April 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed