Note: I encourage readers to read the complete article by Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal. I have denoted those clips from his article with italics and asterisk (***) marks. The section headings are from his article. gt

***The Church has enjoyed the credibility associated with these truths because people failed to discern between that which is originally Christian and that which is the true possession of all mankind.

Christianity has also falsely claimed to be the originator of certain truths that do not belong to her.

And finally and most seriously, the Church has set herself up as the sole distributor of truths that belong to everyone.***

The Universal Principles of Justice and Charity

***This literary device accentuates the fictitious notion that Jesus is the originator of these universal truths and that they were unknown to mankind until Jesus uttered them to his audience.***

I appreciate your opening word of caution in your article, sir. It may be my own familiarity with much of the content of your message, but I found nothing shaking about your approach or your claims and unbelief.

As you are a Jew with convictions; I am a disciple of Jesus. Your claims reflect some common misconceptions.

You state: ***This literary device accentuates the fictitious notion that Jesus is the originator of these universal truths and that they were unknown to mankind until Jesus uttered them to his audience.***

The truth is I have stated for many years that with the exception of very few points most of what Jesus taught was not new to the world. That you take exception to what you perceive as Jesus’ claims as originator of these truths is more a flaw of interpretation. The claim is as weak as it is unnecessary. Your claim is unnecessary for no less then the reason you cite, namely, that the universal, common principles and truths exposited by Jesus are as much his as they are yours, mine and all mankind to claim. When our convictions meet or exceed those of the originator have we not effectively made those truths our own so as to live and die by them? Certainly, Jesus propounding of those truths was with much more of an intent that to speak or parrot them as others did before and have done so since. More on the exaltation of Jesus and humanity’s “need” for Jesus later.

The Inherent Godliness of Mankind

You have seriously overstated, if not outright misstated, the message of the New Testament scriptures on the evil of man, sir. Your overstatement is a eschew, as for example, of the Genesis 6 passage.

Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was continually only evil. 6 Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.

As much as you eschew the above passage you do concede there is evil in man. It’s the matter of that “sorry state of affairs” concerning Jesus that does not sit well with you. More on that sorry state later.

I understand there’s no room for any gospel business here and I’ll leave that aside for the moment, but your assertion is as ignorant as it is a serious misstatement of the New Testament message. IT IS NOT that non-Christians cannot do good. It is not that they cannot do righteousness. Furthermore, it is not that they fail to DO good or DO righteousness. Rather, it is that the good they do and the righteousness they do is according to a righteousness in accordance with their own standard. Yes, the scriptures do speak of “enemies of God”, but any judgment on them is NOT for the good they DO, but for the good they DO NOT do. More on that later.

The Testimony of the Jewish Nation

Yes, Israel was the recipient of the oracles of God even as Paul reminded the church of Israel’s role in God’s revelation to man. Your claim:

***The Jew was trustworthy enough to establish the credibility of her covenant with God, her prophets and her Messianic vision.***

What does “trustworthy enough to establish the credibility” mean? Your statement does bring to my remembrance the admonition of God to Israel that He had not chosen them because of piety, goodness or anything God deems favorable. Rather, Israel was chosen because of God’s was faithfulness to his promise to Abraham.

The Jewish Scriptures

***According to the Jewish Bible, the deification of any inhabitant of God’s earth is idolatry, the greatest rebellion against God.***

This is certainly a true statement. Yet, as true and noble as it may make us sound or make us appear it is not to say there is much or any degree of appreciation for one of your key points: Man was created in the image of God.

Israel’s own sin of idolatry is only reflective of all mankind’s own proclivity to idolatry. The interesting point about your statement is that it is glib if not short of memory. The reason I state this is that in a mere matter of weeks or months after God had liberated Israel from Egyptian bondage and after they have already seen his works Israel was quick to forget these works of God and had Aaron built them a golden calf.

Although the sin was immediately dealt with by God Israel was to slip into worse, far-reaching idolatry which resulted in Israel, not God, breaking their covenant with God and being taken captive to Babylon.

What shook my first century Jewish brothers and sisters in the faith to look to Jesus was extraordinary. It was not the matter of a virgin birth or his claims on universal truths, but the claims He unabashedly made and which were clearly heard and understood as much by friends and foes as to his deity.

Those claims would be a hollow, worthless notion had his friends and foes alike not been witnesseses to the fulfillment of his claims concerning his resurrection from the dead.

Why does it seem incredible or impossible if God were to elect to take on a similar form as the man which he created? Do we really think such a short term blink-of-an-eye human experience of thirty years could possibly be a hinderance to God? Was God hampered or limited in his governance of creation when he manifested Himself in the burning to Moses? Or, when His presence remained with Israel in the ark of the covenant? The history of Israel in the Torah, the prophets and writings is replete with God surprising people with his actions, often to the appall of Israel and her prophets. Today, if we would understand and appreciated those lessons we would then maybe consider, even if with no less shock or appall then Israel and the prophets, at His incarnation among his own.

The Messianic Hope

***According to Christian theology, the glory of the Messianic era is reserved for those who have placed their faith in Jesus.***

This statement struck me as peculiar until I read the rest of your article. A message of exclusivity does not play well in our present world. The world wants to be safe, as in professing trust in God in accordance with a particular tenet of faith, while being open to anything and everything. This is the way to absolve oneself both from the need to understand, teach and tougher still, to correct.

The Relationship That Man Shares With God

***All we need to do is to focus on the blessings, recognize how we did nothing to deserve them, and we will learn to feel each moment of existence as an embrace from a loving Father.***

This marks an enormous and significant shift between your point on The Messianic Hope and The Relationship That Man Shares With God. You ply on the prophets and their message of hope to the world to employ your own message. Was the message of prophets like today’s new age, culture-speak of “focus(ing) on the positive”, “overcome(ing) psychological barriers,” of “Your relationship with your Creator … before you were born” or did they call it sin? Yes, in the midst of their proclamation of messianic hope and calling Israel back from her rebellion against God they called it sin. We know of the people’s response to the message of sin by the prophets and the fate faced by those servants of God.

Conclusion

Your lament about how the church has stolen the scriptures, Jewish culture is unconvincing. It is unconvincing because Israel still has the scriptures and her culture. Whatever the church or anyone else might do with those scriptures and that culture can in no way be taken from Israel. Your mistaken view to equate the precepts and practices of the Catholic church as that of all disciples of Jesus is seriously flawed.

The thrust of your article fell short. You failed to unmask Christianity, (Personally, not a term for which I have any use and about as intended towards the faith that is in Christ Jesus as your view on the term “Old Testament.”) Had you unmasked those who followed after Jesus as Lord and Savior you would have seen they emerged with much fear. Yet, greater still was their joy, resolve and determination from these who were from among the children of Israel. They followed, unmasked, after one who ostensibly appeared to be like any Jew or any man, but was cleared more than a man. He was God incarnate.

Blessings to you in the name of the our God and Creator of heaven and earth, sir.

I confess. Sometimes I grow weary of the endless barrage on the church. This from saints in Christ.

I know a brother who goes on long and tiring about the church’s misuse of funds for buildings not authorized by Jesus. Thousand, hundreds of thousand and even millions are spent and still the church cannot meet her budget.

I pointed out the Jews built meeting places. The synagogues were neither authorized nor prohibited under the law of Moses for Israel. Jesus and the apostles taught in those synagogues. It was never a source of contention for them or something about which Jesus castigated the people of God for all their shortcomings, failures and sins.

Clearly, at least it seems to me, the principle of a meeting place for the people of God and the practice of doing so are matters of liberty for the discretion of the saints in Christ. So why does any of this matter?

It matters because as I pointed out to him he has not hit upon some great discovery of the church’s sin concerning buildings. Furthermore, I said, imagine the wide open door for smugness and self-righteousness were the church to boast in her self-sufficiency to meet her budget.

As it is the church is as human as you and I and every brother and sister who struggles with finances and various other matters, but who presses on trusting in the Lord to provide for her, not for herself, but for those to whom she ministers.l She is a body. She is human. She, like her Savior, bleeds yet does not grow weary. Blessed and praised be God, her Lord and Savior.

Youth leaving church

I am leery about a study which focuses on concerns about young leaving the church. The reason I am leery is because of the mindset. It is that same mindset as John’s disciples who expressed their concern to John that Jesus was baptizing and all were coming to him. Few leaders and fellowships have the mindset of a servant which John expressed to his disciples. He understood the importance that Jesus must ascend even as John must descend.

A similar response among youth and church leadership

I’m not so much concerned about who goes where or comes from where as much as what they UNDERSTAND about their decision to come/go and do what it is that attracts or compels them. This is true whether it involves the manner of praise in a particular fellowship or the social action of that fellowship.

Invariably, the response by those captivated by the concerns revealed in studies such as this is to either ramp up or cut back on whatever it is they are or are not doing (such as praise, social action, etc.) in order to increase or cutoff the flow of those either coming or going to this church or that church. These responses, unfortunately, are in the same vein as those who decide to leave or to come. The similarity of the response by youth and church leadership is in their lack understanding.

First social action in New Testament

The Bible example on social action is specific. It is the first instance in the NT of the social action (a term not necessarily wrong or evil) by the church. It’s not merely that the term does no appear in the NT, but that the concept was not in the church’s agenda.

However, that first social action itself was not to those in the world but to the widows in needs. (Acts 6) Certainly, it was not an attempt by the church then, as she so typically seeks today, to change a social status or reform society. This is not to say the church ought not or lacks biblical authority to do so, but the charity instance in Acts began with the widows in the church, first.

The NT requirements for serving tables

Furthermore, I have often noted the requirement by the apostles for those who were to take on this menial task of serving tables. They were to be “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.” It is significant that the Holy Spirit displayed for the church the work of two to the seven selected for this task, not for their distribution to the widows, but their powerful preaching. They were Stephen and Philip.

The Holy Spirit gives words

Is this to say the church ought to increase or cutback on her social action in the community? No. It is to say that when individuals or the church collectively serves widows, mow lawns, drive elderly to their medical appointments, etc., that the fullness of the Holy Spirit is to be evident for all who draw near to them to inquire what and why they have come to do such a thing. I would not presume to dictate or script response flash cards for those workers. The Holy Spirit through a reading and discussion of the Acts 6 passage is able to give insight and understanding but He is always there with a ready word (Luke 12:12) for those who are about the Father’s business of serving tables.

(Source: roundrockministry.blogspot.com)

I think I made an involuntary head jerk when I realized it. It was the day after. It was the first time in 48 years I did not remember or think about it. I forgot it.

I was 13 years old and in the seventh on what turned a sad day in history.

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

I thought about it earlier in the month just as I thought about it on the 23rd, but I forgot that day of November 22.

No, I am no President Kennedy as an orator, but even at an early age I remember being captivated by the delivery of his speeches. Sixteen years later when I stepped up to the pulpit it was his oratory style, not Graham or Roberts, well-known speakers at the time, who inspired me.

It was lunchtime when my classmate Linda Silva rushed back from the classroom next door. She was crying and sobbing heavily, “They shot him!” over and over.

I still remember.

Theology is what we know of and about God. The theology about our belief in God in Christ Jesus is sometimes influenced and shaped in America by what I call bumper sticker theology. We have seen this bumper sticker message: Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven. These make great sound bites and have just enough of a faint biblical ring to be embraced as sound doctrine by some. However, they do little to create a bold confidence in the believer.

The truth is despite the call of Jesus to be perfect much is said to dilute and downgrade that call to something less than an attainable perfection. Similarly, Paul’s numerous and seemingly casual references to the saints being perfect instill little confidence in the saints in Christ. Perfection is viewed as unattainable in this life primarily because it is mistakenly seen as the attainment of a sinless state; a notion complete foreign to the scriptures. Perfection is viewed as something that awaits the saints when we reach heaven. Perfection is definitely neither bland nor unexciting.

These different views of perfection and being perfect affect our interpretation of scripture. One such example is the teleion of first Corinthians 13:10 passage, “but when the perfect (teleion) comes.” The views presented here, as these are perceived by different people, range from the daily to the hopeful to the unexciting of human response to scripture.

There is a need to understand this passage is as vital and important as all scripture. Any neglect or refusal to examine it for an understanding leaves the believer exposed and susceptible to the belief, acceptance and practice of things which have little to do with love and less with scripture.

1. The perfect is agape, love.

2. The perfect is the second coming of Jesus, the eschaton.

3. The perfect is the completed canon New Testament scripture.

The perfect is agape, love.

The first view of the perfect as being love may be primarily due to the heavy influence of the subject of love in chapter 13. Love seems such a natural, daily expression it just seems like no better fit for the passage. The key problem with this view is that the love of which Paul speaks was present (verse 4ff) already and he states that love remains (verse 13) after the perfect comes. With or without gifts the Corinthians, Paul reminds them, they have love.

This is not to negate or belittle the power and love of God towards us or in our daily lives, but as an explanation for the perfect it does not appear to offer the best response to the question of the perfect.

The second coming of Jesus, the eschaton.

The second view draws on the numerous undisputable references by Paul to the eschaton, the (second) coming of Jesus in the Corinthian letter. A few of these references include 1.8f; 2.6; 3.13, 15, 17, 22; 4.4f; 4.8f; 4.19; 5.5; 6.2f; 6.9f; 6.14; 7.17-24, 26, 29, 31; 9.24f; 10.11; 11.26, 29, 32; 15.12ff; 16.22. The problem with this view is it seems to inject the second coming of Jesus as a solution to the problems (which span the context of chapters 12 thru 14) of selfish speakers and their disregard for the edification of the disciples in the chaotic worship assembly in Corinth.

The anticipation in the first century of the return of Jesus was a source of much excitement. It is good that we can look forward excitedly to his coming as we live our daily lives for his glory, but as an explanation for the perfect this does not appear to be the best response.

The perfect is the completed canon New Testament scripture.

The third view for the perfect acknowledges, understands and accepts the need and power of love in the assembly of the saints, but sees the passage as concerning the complete canon of scripture. It also acknowledges, understands and accepts the promise of the second coming of Jesus. These matters are undeniable and true.

However, the context, again spanning from chapters 12 thru 14, concerns knowledge and understanding in the context of the worship assembly. Paul introduces this idea as the direction he will follow in 12:1-3 contrasting the way of pagans who are led astray by dumb idols with the disciples in Christ who are led and speak in the Spirit of God.

Tracking backwards from verse 10 the connectors “for” and “but” in verses 9 and 10 respectively suggest the content of the verse is related to the “know” of verse 9 and the “knowledge” of verse 8. As many gifts of knowledge, tongues, prophecy as the disciples at Corinth had in the church they knew only bits and pieces.

Paul’s use of a phrase which has been overlooked in much of this discussion may be the important element towards clarification and understanding this passage. His use of the phrase face to face rings familiar back to the time when God in Numbers 12 spelled out for all time the definition of a prophet. God, in so doing, distinguished Moses from the prophet category.

Paul and the saints in Christ in the first century, like Moses, received the knowledge of the will of God “face to face.” This expression in itself needs to be understood and is outside the scope of this article. Suffice it to say since Moses was not granted his request (Exodus 33) to see the glory (face) of God it should be understood the expression does not necessarily translate to a face to face encounter. Rather it is the clarity with which God spoke to Moses. The Christians at Corinth were seeing things “in a mirror dimly.” They were looking, albeit dimly, directly into the revelation of the will of God and it was not as though the revelation was not clear or not understandable. The idea of the mirror imagery is that what they were seeing was becoming clearer. There was no need to look elsewhere or trust anyone other then the Spirit for the revelation of the will of God.

The analogy of a child by the apostle Paul is the final word in chapter 13 which further strengthens the conclusion of the perfect as being the complete canon of scripture. A child does not merely put away childish things. He becomes a man and takes on the things of a man so as to carry on the work of God. Scripture is not just so many bits and pieces of thoughts from the mind of God for us. These words are themselves, Jesus said, life and they are spirit. These are the words which flow from the innermost of the believer which are spirit and give life to all who hear the believer.

This view lacks what some perceive as the emotion of love. However, inasmuch as this concerns the communication of God for his people it is not without love. This view lacks, as is perceived by some, the excitement of the glorious event such as the return of Jesus for his church. Yet, this view of the perfect as the complete canon of scripture reflects what it also reveals: A love of believers for the word of God even as every day draws us one day closer to the coming of Jesus.

mmmonacelli:

I like your honesty to admit it is a cliche, Megan, but clearly it’s much more than that for you. It’s YOUR passion.

Do something that matters and do it with passion.

This is cliche, but I like it. I think it’s the foundation from which all our actions and activities and extra-curriculars and jobs should stem.

(Source: mmegsmusings)