Matt 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
KJV
In the introduction to his book Yeshua (see the previous entry) Ron Moseley states that one of the big problems to understanding "both the historical figure named Jesus and the early Church" is "the nearly complete absence of any knowledge concerning the Jewish idioms" Jesus used.
Let's look at a couple now.
What the King James translates as "destroy" other versions render as "abolish." Different English words but basically the same meaning.
"In Rabbinic literature the Greek words translated by the English words 'abolish' and 'fulfill' have Hebrew equivalents that can help understand what Jesus was actually saying. The idea behind the word 'abolish' is to interpret incorrectly while the idea behind the word 'fulfill' means to interpret properly. ... With this understanding, it is obvious that Jesus did not come to start a new religion or to destroy the only Word of God available, but rather to properly interpret the Law and show that He was a new manifestation of the old truth. Brad Young points out that the three key words Torah, abolish, and fulfill possess quite different meanings in their English translations than in ancient Jewish thought." (Moseley, Yeshua, pp. 73-74)
Over the years I have heard many sermons dealing with this part of the Sermon on the Mount. Invariably "destroy" was literally taken to be "do away with," while "fulfill" was "fill to the full."
The correct understanding is better. Let's fulfill Mat. 5:17 rather than destroy it.
"Think not that I am come to wrongly interpret the law, or the prophets. I am not come to misinterpret, but to interpret correctly."
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Right On, Dr. Moseley
Dr. Ron Moseley includes the following at the beginning of his book Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church:
"Although my personal convictions do not violate original Chrisiian orthodoxy, I do believe that many scholors with varying doctrinal opinions are able to contribute to specific areas of research. Without permitting any to mold my theology, in this work I have used the findings of Jews, Christians, Trinitarians, non-Trinatarians, and liberals. as well as fundementalists, when it was evident that their area of expertise was correct in investigating the truth concerning Church history. Although it would be a gross overstatement to say that everyone with an opinion should be quoted, it would be equally in error to leave out a scholorly review simply because it differed from my own. Ronald W. Moseley, Ph. D."
Again, I say, Right on, Dr. Moseley. It's the truth I want, and I'm willing to learn from whoever has it. No one, I've found , has it all. Once, believing I was part of the "One True Church," I limited my Bible study inputs to a single source, and later realized I had been following a man-- making me an idolator-- and many of the "truths" I clutched were something else.
"Although my personal convictions do not violate original Chrisiian orthodoxy, I do believe that many scholors with varying doctrinal opinions are able to contribute to specific areas of research. Without permitting any to mold my theology, in this work I have used the findings of Jews, Christians, Trinitarians, non-Trinatarians, and liberals. as well as fundementalists, when it was evident that their area of expertise was correct in investigating the truth concerning Church history. Although it would be a gross overstatement to say that everyone with an opinion should be quoted, it would be equally in error to leave out a scholorly review simply because it differed from my own. Ronald W. Moseley, Ph. D."
Again, I say, Right on, Dr. Moseley. It's the truth I want, and I'm willing to learn from whoever has it. No one, I've found , has it all. Once, believing I was part of the "One True Church," I limited my Bible study inputs to a single source, and later realized I had been following a man-- making me an idolator-- and many of the "truths" I clutched were something else.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Just How Does Salt Lose Its Savour?
Matt 5:13
13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
KJV
So, how does salt lose its savour? (Or, as Mark puts it, its "saltiness?" Mark 9:50,) Over time, can salt, just lying there, become something else? No. Salt is salt, no more salty nor less salty than it ever was? So what is Jesus saying here? How can we possibly become unsalty salt?
I feel sure that Jim Fleming gave the correct answer one day when I heard him speak in Houston. And here is the same explanation taken from his study guide for that class, "The Difficult Sayings of Jesus."
Fleming says the biblical name for the Dead Sea is "salt sea." Right near the Dead sea is a mountain, called Mount Sodom, about eight miles long and maybe a third of a mile wide, that is 98% salt. From here, and from two places along the shore of the sea, salt was gathered in Jesus' day. Mount Sodom was brown, not white because the salt was mixed with dirt.
"When you go to the market to purchase salt, you buy a mixture of dirt and salt. You take it home and put it on a plate and place it on the table. What makes this a difficult saying of Jesus is that salt does not lose its flavor. In the parable it says, 'Salt has lost its flavor.' What is going on here? In Jesus' day you picked out the white pieces from the salt and dirt on the plate on the table and sprinkled it on your food. Eventually, the lump of salt and dirt will only be dirt and it will have 'lost its flavor.' The dirt that was left then was thrown into the street and trodden under foot. Once we understand the cultural context, we understand that salt does lose its 'saltiness.'"
Mystery solved.
13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
KJV
So, how does salt lose its savour? (Or, as Mark puts it, its "saltiness?" Mark 9:50,) Over time, can salt, just lying there, become something else? No. Salt is salt, no more salty nor less salty than it ever was? So what is Jesus saying here? How can we possibly become unsalty salt?
I feel sure that Jim Fleming gave the correct answer one day when I heard him speak in Houston. And here is the same explanation taken from his study guide for that class, "The Difficult Sayings of Jesus."
Fleming says the biblical name for the Dead Sea is "salt sea." Right near the Dead sea is a mountain, called Mount Sodom, about eight miles long and maybe a third of a mile wide, that is 98% salt. From here, and from two places along the shore of the sea, salt was gathered in Jesus' day. Mount Sodom was brown, not white because the salt was mixed with dirt.
"When you go to the market to purchase salt, you buy a mixture of dirt and salt. You take it home and put it on a plate and place it on the table. What makes this a difficult saying of Jesus is that salt does not lose its flavor. In the parable it says, 'Salt has lost its flavor.' What is going on here? In Jesus' day you picked out the white pieces from the salt and dirt on the plate on the table and sprinkled it on your food. Eventually, the lump of salt and dirt will only be dirt and it will have 'lost its flavor.' The dirt that was left then was thrown into the street and trodden under foot. Once we understand the cultural context, we understand that salt does lose its 'saltiness.'"
Mystery solved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)