Torah - Tumblr Posts
What Is Original Sin?
By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim
Most of us think that we are good people. We haven’t harmed anyone. We’re not that bad. So, what kind of sins do we have to confess? In fact, sometimes we can’t even think of any. Yet 1 John 1.8-10 (KJV) reads:
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness. If we say that we have
not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us.
——-
Original Sin
Original sin is the Christian doctrine that human beings inherit a sin nature at birth, with some Protestant theologians even arguing for total depravity, namely, that we’re in such a state of rebellion against God that we’re not even able to follow him, by ourselves, without his effectual grace. Other Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), totally dismissed the thought of original sin by giving it a more allegorical interpretation.
Unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam hold a more positive view of human nature. They assert that human beings have an equal capacity for both good and evil, and that they don’t inherit another person’s sin at birth. They also claim that although humans might be culturally conditioned to sin by decadent societies, nevertheless they’re not born that way. To back that up, the Jews often quote the Torah (Deut. 24.16), which states:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the
children, neither shall the children be put to
death for the fathers: every man shall be
put to death for his own sin.
To drive the point home, they usually cite Ezekiel 18.20:
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon
him.
But these passages are only referring to actual sins, namely, to behavioral sins that each individual is personally responsible for. These verses, however, are not addressing *collective sin* that resides in human nature.
——-
The Collective Unconscious
Carl Jung (1875 - 1961), the famous Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, defined the concept we now know as the “collective unconscious.” This phrase refers to the deepest layer of the unconscious mind which, according to Jung, is genetically inherited and is therefore not part of individual history or personal experience. In other words, it’s not part of the personal unconscious.
Jung held that each person retains these innate unconscious impressions of humanity as a collective knowledge of our species. They’re in our genes, so to speak. But, here, also lurk all the dark, animal instincts of man, as well as the archetypes. One such archetype is called the “shadow,” an unconscious aspect of the personality that the conscious self doesn’t recognize or identify with. It represents a large portion of the *dark side* that is completely foreign and unknown to the ego. These collectively-inherited unconscious archetypes are universally present in every human being.
Over the years, many artistic works, like Star Wars, have addressed themselves to the dark side of human nature, from Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, to horror movies like American Psycho and Hannibal Lecter, to the constant violence that no current Action film seems to be without. Life imitating art would be when we witness the exact same things happening in real life while turning on the 6 o’clock news. We customarily disassociate ourselves from this aspect of human nature. We can never imagine that this state of mind resides within all of us. We always point fingers at someone else. In our eyes, we are saints. We’re like the Pharisee in Luke 18.11:
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with
himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as
other men are, extortioners, unjust,
adulterers, or even as this publican.
But, according to Jesus, we are all a bunch of hypocrites. In Matthew 15.18-19, Jesus implies that the dark side is hidden in the unconscious. It’s not simply a conscious thought, a spoken word, or an action that is the cause of one’s sinful behavior but rather a deep state of being (aka “the heart”) out of which proceeds all manner of evil:
But those things which proceed out of the
mouth come forth from the heart; and they
defile the man. For out of the heart proceed
evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies.
That’s why Jeremiah 17.9 declares:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked: who can know it?
No wonder Paul says that the unregenerate are still carnal (Rom. 8.8):
they that are in the flesh cannot
please God.
As theologian Timothy Keller asserts:
The church is not a museum for pristine
saints, but a hospital ward for broken
sinners.
If one fails to understand Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” or the dark side of human nature, one will ultimately misunderstand the Biblical doctrine of original sin.
——-
Why Does Jesus Have to Die for Humanity?
Jesus doesn’t have to suffer greatly and die on a tree simply on account of sins that were committed in the past, or to justify repentant sinners because of their current or future sins. No! Jesus dies to redeem *human nature* from original sin. He dies for humanity’s collective sin (past, present, and future). And he also redeems humanity, in himself, by dying to sin. In other words, Jesus dies to the sinful state of being, if you will, in order to free human nature from the bondage of death and decay. Not only does Jesus justify sinners by dying to sin, but because he is God, he also transforms human nature itself. In the resurrection, Christ’s human nature that rises from the grave is no longer sin-tainted, but glorious!
Otherwise, if everyone sinned voluntarily, and human beings were not tainted by original sin, then there wouldn’t be any reason for God’s Son to die for mankind. In that case, sin would be an individual or personal responsibility, not a collective one. And humanity would not need a savior because there would be neither a collective cause nor a cure for crime, violence, and murder. These people would simply be classified as criminal offenders who, unlike others, consciously “chose” to behave that way.
However, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 5.18–19:
Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam]
judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous.
In fact, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15.21-22:
For since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead. For
as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive.
Conclusion
Because the concept of the unconscious had not yet been discovered in Antiquity or the Dark Ages, the existence of the collective unconscious was not known, let alone addressed by either Judaism or Islam. Their criticism of original sin is quite unsophisticated and is presented exclusively from the point of view of the conscious mind. They neither comprehend the totality of the personality nor do they consider unconscious motivation. Therefore, to deny or ignore the overwhelming influence of the dark side of man (aka sin nature) is equivalent to a naïveté: a lack of experience, sophistication, and wisdom! This lack of skillful treatment is either due to innocence or deep repression.
That’s precisely why many people don’t know what sin is. And, consequently, they keep sinning. They can’t even understand why Jesus has to die for them. They often ask, what’s the big fuss about “original sin”? Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The heart of man is exceedingly deceitful.”
What do you think is the meaning behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”? It presents the duality within man. This work is emphasizing the dark side of human nature that is hidden underneath our socially-acceptable “Dr. Jekyll” persona. But in the unconscious lurks another personality, Mr. Hyde, who represents evil that’s waiting in the wings. The depth of human cruelty is also represented in “Heart of darkness,” by Joseph Conrad. It’s the same idea in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” All these classic works of art act like mirrors in trying to show us blind spots that we don’t usually see in ourselves and end up projecting onto others. And this darkness that proceeds from man’s collective unconscious is what Christian theologians have coined “original sin.” Louis Berkhof, in his “Systematic Theology,” pt. 2, ch. 4, writes:
actual sin in the life of man is generally
admitted. This does not mean, however,
that people have always had an equally
profound consciousness of sin. We hear a
great deal nowadays about the ‘loss of the
sense of sin.’
Therefore, the psychological and spiritual goal is to give up one's naivete and to expand one's consciousness so as to embrace and integrate all aspects of one’s personality and human nature. That’s what psychoanalysts mean when they say, “making the unconscious conscious.” It is here that rebirth in Christ becomes possible. That’s why wisdom teachers typically say that we need to see existence as it really is. What you need to do, in the words of the Dalai Lama (which represent the title of his book), is to figure out “How to see yourself as you really are.” It is then, and only then, when you will finally realize that sin is not simply an isolated behavior, but rather a state of being——deeply rooted in the “carnal mind” (cf. Rom. 6.6)——that needs to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. And that *existential experience* in and of itself constitutes not only a prelude to “rebirth,” but also the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ!
——-
For more info on this topic, see my essay, “BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184880965717/i-think-the-greek-phrase-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%E1%BD%B6%CF%82-%E1%BC%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82-ie
A Critical Review of the “TruthUnedited” YouTube Channel Which Teaches a Heretical Christian Doctrine
By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓
What is the Truthunedited Platform?
Although the practical side of this YouTube channel appears to have a semblance of Christianity, the theology is definitely Judaic!
This YouTube channel is called “Truthunedited” and it also has an affiliated website: Truthunedited.com. These platforms are apparently run by the host, Mr. Ron Charles. Unfortunately, I could not find anything about his qualifications. This is a very popular YouTube channel that has 604k subscribers.
Their website seems to advertise books by the Restored Church of God (RCG), an offshoot of the teachings and doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong who was the leader of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). The RCG is a cult which,
denies the Trinity, says that God is a
composition of two beings … that being
born again means being resurrected from
flesh to spirit, that the earth was re-
created, that people will not go to hell and
will be annihilated, that Christians do not go
to heaven, … that the Holy Spirit is a force.”
——- Wiki
I skimmed through some of the videos that he’s put forth and they seem quite disturbing. For example, one of the videos refers to Easter as a goddess, which is based on the discredited 19th century book “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop. The actual word Easter in Greek is “Pascha” (Πάσχα), from the Jewish “Passover” (aka Pesach). So, in trying to discredit Easter as a pagan holiday, his argument is irrelevant to the original Hebrew festival because he’s arguing only from the English translation, the so-called Month of Ēostre', which is historically a so-called “Paschal month" that corresponds to April.
In another video (“What is the true name of our creator & messiah?”), Mr. Ron Charles differentiates between the creator and the messiah, even though Hebrews 1.2 & John 1.1-3 tell us explicitly that Jesus is in fact the creator! Mr. Charles admits that he is part of the Hebrew Roots movement——which is a Jewish religious movement that advocates adherence to the Torah and the Law of Moses——something that Paul criticized vehemently. More on that later. He writes: “I want to discuss why I prefer using the Hebrew name of our creator and the Hebrew name of our Messiah.” But the messiah **Is** the creator! Why distinguish between the creator and the messiah? Well, because that is a Hebrew, not a Christian, position.
A Critical Review of the Truthunedited Video: “This is How a Believer Should Live in These Last Days”
While viewing this channel, I saw some other heretical videos as well but I would like to limit the discussion to one particular video which I listened to from start to finish, namely, a recent YouTube video entitled “This is How a Believer Should Live in These Last Days.”
The content of this video is quite shocking! As a case in point, what does the host mean by saying that he praises “Yah”? Is he a Hebrew convert? Because in the New Testament the name Yah is never mentioned, not even once! According to the New Testament, we must ONLY praise **Jesus**:
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is
no other name under heaven given to
mankind by which we must be saved.
——- Acts 4.12 NIV
Yet, in this entire video, Mr. Charles mentions the actual name of the God-incarnate-messiah “Jesus” only once, and that in passing, as a pejorative translation. And yet, the original Greek name of the Messiah is Iésous, the correct English translation of which is Jesus.
Moreover, Mr. Ron Charles keeps talking about his personal relationship with the Father. He never once mentions his personal relationship with the Son. As a matter of fact, when he refers to God’s Son, who’s coequal with the Father, he simply calls him by the vague term “messiah.” Mr. Charles claims to come from the Hebrew Roots Movement. But, as far as the Jews are concerned, the messiah is NOT Jesus. For example, a majority of the Jewish Chabad community believe that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the deceased seventh Rebbe of the Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty, is the Jewish messiah. Is that who he’s referring to? Different religions have different messiahs. For instance, in Islam there is Imam Husayn and the Twelfth Imám (Shí’ih), and the Promised Qá’im in the Bábí Faith. There is also the Buddha Maitreya-Amitabha, the Shah Bahrám (Zoroastrianism), and the Avatar Kalki (Hinduism). These are different messiahs that are associated with different belief systems. To the Rastafari religion, it is Haile Selassie I from Ethiopia. So, which of these messiahs is he referring to? And if he’s a Christian, why doesn’t he mention the name of Jesus Christ, which is the name above all other names?
He discusses the cultural deception that is going on and “the marketing of Satan,” but his misleading approach to Jesus Christ and the New Testament is equally dangerous and deceptive because it not only mixes Christianity with Judaism, but it also destroys the New Testament from within by radically changing its terminology, it’s theology, and even the name of it’s God. If we don’t even know who we are praying to, why bother to pray at all? I don’t know enough about his soteriological views because I haven’t listened to any of his other videos, except one. I don’t know what salvation means to him. But given that he is part of the Hebrew Roots Movement, I suspect he thinks that we have to follow the laws of Moses, observe the sabbaths, etc. But Paul urges us to do the exact opposite (cf. Acts 16.31):
all are justified freely by his [God’s] grace
through the redemption that came by Christ
Jesus. ——- Rom 3.24
Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the
truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me.’ ——- John 14.6
In the New Testament, is the Messiah’s Name Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? Is it Ἰησοῦς or Yeshua?
In the video that we’re discussing, the host keeps repeating the name Yahusha. But who is Yahusha, anyway? Can he show us where that name is mentioned in the Greek New Testament as Jesus’ name? Answer: nowhere! The host mentions the name of Jesus only once, in passing, by erroneously stating that his name is “Yahusha, who in English is translated to Jesus.” In order to confirm this translation, please give us chapter and verse in the New Testament where Yahusha is written as the name of Jesus. This so-called “evidence” doesn’t exist. The New Testament only mentions the name Ἰησοῦς, which in English is translated as Jesus, not Yahusha (see the original Greek New Testament: Matthew 1.16; 3.13, 15-16; 4.1, 7, 10, 17; 7.28; 8.4, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22; 9.2, 4, etc.). And I’m only partially citing the gospel of Matthew. There are many more references. Besides, there are three more gospels, the book of Acts, the epistles, and the Book of Revelation. The name Iesous (Jesus) is mentioned nearly 1,000 times in the New Testament. The Greek text never once refers to Jesus as Yahusha or Yeshua!
If Jesus’ name was in fact the Hebrew Yeshua, why didn’t the New Testament transliterate it as Yeshua? By contrast, the name “Ἰησοῦς” is not annotated as a transliteration, even though Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:
1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is
explained.
2) ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι is explained in
Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46.
3) Talitha cum is explained in Mark 5.41.
4) In John 20.16, "Rabbouni” is explained.
5) In Romans 8.15, Abba is explained.
6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is
explained.
The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. For example, in Matthew 27.46, we read:
Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? (which means
‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken
me?’).
By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name. If what Mr. Charles says is true, why doesn’t the New Testament indicate that the name “Jesus” is the transliteration of Yeshua? You would think that a name as important as Jesus would necessitate such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration from the Late Biblical Hebrew Yēšūaʿ (Yeshūa):
The English name Jesus derives from the
Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates
the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs.
——- Wiki
By contrast:
The name יֵשׁוּעַ, Yeshua ([is] transliterated in
the English Old Testament as Jeshua).
——- Wiki
Conflating the Hebrew name of Joshua with Jesus Christ is confusing for various reasons:
In Nehemiah 8:17 this name refers to
Joshua son of Nun, the successor of Moses,
as leader of the Israelites. ——- Wiki
According to the Book of Numbers verse
13:16, the name of Joshua, the son of Nun
was originally Hosheaʿ (הוֹשֵעַ), and the
name Yehoshuaʿ (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) is usually spelled
the same but with a yod added at the
beginning. ——- Wiki
So what do we call the messiah of the New Testament? Joshua son of Nun, Hoshea, Yəhōšūaʿ, Yeshua, or whatever other Hebrew name we could think of?
New Testament Misquotes and Hebrew Interpolations
Mr. Ron Charles, the host of this video, misquotes Paul as supposedly saying that “this is the Will of Elohim & Yahusha for you.” But Paul does not mention either Elohim or Yahusha in his letters. Why is he putting words in Paul’s mouth that Paul never said? This is misleading because he’s colouring the Greek New Testament with foreign elements from the Hebrew Roots movement. If he’s going to refer to the New Testament, it’s appropriate that he uses the original Greek words of the text. Hebrew is appropriate only for the Old Testament.
He further misquotes Ephesians 5.17. The text reads “Lord,” not master. Ephesians 5.17 uses the Greek term “kurios” to mean “Lord.” We are not talking about kung-fu, platonic philosophy, or Buddhism where there’s a master-disciple relationship. We’re talking about reverence to almighty God. The only appropriate translations are “Lord” or “God.” None of the credible Bible translations quote kurios as master. I’m not sure which Bible version he’s using. He also misquotes Romans 12.11, 19, and Philippians 3.1. The word is Κυρίῳ (Lord), not Yahuah! Furthermore, in Philippians 3.14, the words are God (θεοῦ, not Elohim), and Christ Jesus (Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, not Messiah Yahuah). In Philippians 3.20, the words are Lord Jesus Christ (κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν), not “master Yahusha the messiah.” This is a way of belittling the name of Jesus by not mentioning his name *properly* or *reverently* and not referring to him in a manner worthy of the name that is above all names. That name is actually Ἰησοῦs (i.e. Jesus) in the Greek New Testament. It is not a Hebrew name derived from the Old Testament or from Pharisaical Judaism.
Mr. Charles then misquotes James 1.27 and mentions a “Pure and undefiled religion before Elohim and the father.” And if the Father is not Elohim, then who is Elohim? In the New Testament, neither Jesus nor the Father is ever called Elohim. Mr. Ron Charles doesn’t seem to be familiar with textual criticism, the Greek New Testament, or with Christian theology.
He then misquotes 2 Corinthians 5.20 by using the vague term “messiah”——a term that means different things to different people——and also by mentioning Elohim who, once again, is never mentioned in the New Testament. Here is the phrase in the original Greek (2 Corinthians 5.20 SBLGNT):
ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν ὡς τοῦ
θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι’ ἡμῶν · δεόμεθα
ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ.
As you can see, the Greek words that Paul uses are Christ (Χριστοῦ) and God (θεῷ), not messiah or Elohim. That’s why Jesus is known as Jesus Christ, whom he never mentions, except once as a pejorative or pagan translation. Yet he claims that “we are representatives of the gospel.” But if he identifies with the New Testament, why is his theology derived from the Old Testament? I also noticed that his relationship is not with the Son, but rather with the Father, because he keeps saying that he had some issues that the father had to help him work through.
What is more, he keeps praising this unknown and obscure messiah without once revealing what his true name is: the name that is above all other names, mind you. This New Testament name stands far above the other Old Testament names (such as Elohim and Yahweh) because we are not supposed to call on these names for salvation. So, which name do we call upon for salvation? We are to call on the name of Jesus (Acts 4.12)!
Hebrew Roots Beliefs
In case you’re not familiar with the Hebrew Roots Movement, here are some of their beliefs:
Hebrew Roots followers believe that sin is
breaking the Torah (cf. 1 John 3:4), all of the
purity laws such as dietary restrictions and
sabbath keeping are in the Torah, thus it is
sinful to not keep the sabbath and to eat
forbidden animals, among other social and
religious observance laws. ——- Wiki
Unlike the New Testament that does away with the works of the law (legalism) in favor of grace, the Hebrew Roots followers believe in observing the Law of Moses and the Torah:
Old Testament/Torah Laws and the
teachings of the New Testament are to be
obeyed by both Jews and Gentiles in the
community of believers. (See Numbers
15:15–16 for the explanation). ——- Wiki
But these “Hebrew Roots” beliefs are the exact opposite of what the Greek New Testament teaches. In fact, this is precisely the charge that Paul brought against Judaizers in Galatians. Paul says in Galatians 2.16:
know that a person is not justified by the
works of the law, but by faith in Jesus
Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in
Christ Jesus that we may be justified by
faith in Christ and not by the works of the
law, because by the works of the law no one
will be justified.
In Galatians 2.21, Paul says:
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if
righteousness could be gained through the
law, Christ died for nothing!
In Galatians 3.11, Paul repeats the justification of faith teaching through grace:
Clearly no one who relies on the law is
justified before God, because ‘the righteous
will live by faith.’
It’s also found in many other places, including Romans 3.20:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous
in God’s sight by the works of the law.
It doesn’t get any clearer than that. We are not to observe the law. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone! In fact, the entire New Testament can be summed up as the revelation of the person and work of Jesus Christ (Ιησούς Χριστός).
Alas, even as he ends his video, Mr. Ron Charles keeps talking about Elohim, while repeating the ambiguous and enigmatic term “messiah” over and over again. He also keeps mentioning “Yah” nonstop. But who is “Yah” in the New Testament? He is never mentioned. In fact, Mr. Charles ends the video by saying “praise yah.” Really? Not Jesus? And he is supposedly a Christian who identifies with the Gospel of the New Testament? I don’t think so. This is clearly a heretical Jewish theology that radically deviates from, and corrupts the truths of, Christianity!
See my essay:
“Yahweh is Never Once Mentioned in the New Testament”
https://www.instagram.com/p/BjOF_wqhKdv/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
——-
Who or What is the Ark of the Covenant?
Eli Kittim
The Ark of the Covenant was a gold-plated wooden chest that housed the two tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). Jewish folklore holds that the ark of the covenant disappeared sometime around 586 B.C. when the Babylonian empire destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Throughout the centuries, many writers, novelists, ufologists, and religious authors have invented two kinds of wild and adventurous stories about the ark of the covenant. They either talk about fearless treasure-hunters, archaeologists, and paleographers who went hunting for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, or about ancient alien civilizations that made contact with humans in prehistoric times. This has led some authors to the startling conclusion that the ark of the covenant may have been part of a highly advanced ancient-alien technology. But the Biblical data do not support such outrageous and outlandish conclusions.
From a Biblical standpoint, both the “ark of the covenant” and “Noah’s Ark” are symbols that represent salvation in the death of the Messiah. Isaiah 53:5 reads thusly:
he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that
brought us peace, and with his wounds we
are healed.
We can also call it the covenant of salvation based on the atoning death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). If you pay close attention to the biblical symbols and details, you’ll notice that both Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant represent some type of casket, which signifies the atoning death of the Messiah (that saves humanity). Christ’s covenant is based on his death. Without Christ’s death there is no salvation. That’s what ultimately redeems humanity from death and hell, and allows for resurrection and glorification to occur. Christ, then, is the ark of the covenant, also represented by Noah’s ark (which saves a few faithful humans who believe in God). The caskets are of different sizes. The smaller casket (the ark of the covenant) could only carry one person (the Messiah), whereas the larger one (Noah’s Ark) can accommodate all of humanity (symbolizing those who are baptized into Christ’s death). According to the Book “After the Flood,” by Bill Cooper, “The Hebrew word for ark, tebah, may be related to the Egyptian word db't, = ‘coffin.’ “ Romans 6:3 declares:
Do you not know that all of us who have
been baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death?
In other words, it’s not Christ’s incarnation but rather his death that saves humanity. All those who follow him and are baptized into his death are saved!
How is Christ the “ark of the covenant”? Christ is the Word of God (Jn 1:1), the Logos, or the Law of God (the Torah)! That’s why the ark of the covenant doesn’t dwell on earth but in heaven. Rev 11:19 reads:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,
and the ark of his covenant was seen within
his temple. There were flashes of lightning,
rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake,
and heavy hail.
Who dwells within God’s throne-room, within God’s temple, and is represented by the ark of the covenant? Answer: Jesus Christ! A similar scenario takes place in Revelation 21:2-3:
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God,
prepared as a bride adorned for her
husband. And I heard a loud voice from the
throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of
God is with man. He will dwell with them,
and they will be his people, and God himself
will be with them as their God.’
Notice that the terms “God” and “the dwelling place of God” are used interchangeably. In other words, the metaphors of the dwelling place, the tent of meeting (ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ; i.e. the tabernacle), the temple and its sacrificial system, as well as the ark of the covenant, all represent God and signify the blood of the covenant or the blood of the lamb (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 7:14; 12:11)! Christ is not only the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), but also the high priest who offers up his own life for the salvation of humanity (Heb. 7:17). According to Acts 4:12, there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”: not Moses, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius, or Allah, or Yahweh. According to Philippians 2:10-11:
at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, in heaven and on earth and under the
earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.
Therefore, he who is within the throne-room of God, and “among the people,” is none other than the Second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, who “will dwell with them” forevermore (Rev. 21:3). It’s a throwback to Leviticus, which prophesied the incarnation of God, but which the Jews misunderstood and misinterpreted. Leviticus 26:12:
I will be ever present in your midst: I will be
your God, and you shall be My people.
Compare Revelation 21.3:
He will dwell with them, and they will be his
people, and God himself will be with them
as their God.
Israelology Versus Replacement Theology: Is the Bible about Israel or Jesus?
Eli Kittim
If Jesus is the Messianic fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible, then the Old Testament is essentially Christocentric (not Jewishcentric) and the New Testament is not talking about two peoples (the Jews & the church) but rather one: the elect (cf. Eph. 2:19-20), which is to say that the overarching theme of the Old Testament is not about a race but about a person: the Messiah!
If in fact there are 2 peoples with 2 different sets of standards (law & grace) by which they’re saved, then that would invalidate Christ’s atonement, as would the rebuilding of the third Jewish temple, which would necessitate the reinstituting of animal sacrifices. However, the Bible is not about ethnicity, racism, or nationalism. In Romans 2:28-29 (NASB), Paul redefines what the term Jew means in scripture:
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
nor is circumcision that which is outward in
the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one
inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart.
In the Bible, there are not two people of God, but only one: those who are in Christ. At the end of the age, Christ will separate “the sheep from the goats” (Mt. 25.32). In other words, there are only two categories: you are either in Christ or out of Christ! The Bible is Christocentric. It is not ethnocentric. It’s not about a race.
Instead of admitting that they view the Bible as being about their race and not about Christ, the Hebrew Roots Movement dresses it up euphemistically as though the controversy was about the Jews versus the church. But that’s a misnomer. The real controversy is this: they don’t believe that the Bible is about Christ. But they hide that from you! Messianic Jews are often far more Judaic than they let on.
Read the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 9. It’s all about how Christ is greater than the temple sacrifices or the Law of Moses. This is a New Covenant. So why are the Jews holding on to the old one? Hebrews 8:13 declares:
When He [God] said, ‘A new covenant,’ He
has made the first obsolete.
Both Galatians and Romans are authentic Pauline letters. In those letters, Paul says categorically & unequivocally that we are saved by Grace, not by the Law. Paul says in Galatians 2:16:
a person is not justified by works
of the Law but through faith in Christ.
In Galatians 2:21, Paul says:
if righteousness comes through the Law, then
Christ died needlessly.
In Galatians 3:11, Paul repeats the justification of faith teaching:
that no one is justified by the Law before
God is evident; for, ‘the righteous one will
live by faith.’
It’s also found in many other places, including Romans 3:20:
by the works of the Law none of mankind
will be justified in His sight.
It doesn’t get any clearer than that. We are not to observe the law. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. According to Acts 4:12:
there is salvation in no one else [except
Jesus Christ]; for there is no other name
under heaven that has been given among
mankind by which we must be saved.
Yahweh is never once mentioned in the New Testament. Moreover, Galatians 3:7 says that we are the sons of Abraham by faith (not by race):
recognize that it is those who are of faith
who are sons of Abraham.
Ephesians 2:12-13 says that through “the blood of Christ” the elect are now part of God’s family. There’s only one plan, one family, one salvation, and one Lord, not 2 different salvation plans, or 2 peoples. It’s not that we have replaced Israel but that we have been brought into one family through Jesus’ atonement (the new covenant) which was prophesied in Jeremiah 31.31.
Incidentally, the history of replacement theology doesn’t go back to the dispensationalism of the 1800s, but rather to the early church. In Jer. 3:8, God gave Israel an official certificate of divorce. In Mt. 21:43, Jesus promised that the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) concurred that God’s covenant with Israel was annulled and that the Jews had been replaced by the Gentiles. Origen’s (185-253 AD) view was along the same lines. Irenaeus (ca. 130-202 AD) also proclaimed that God disinherited the Jews from his grace. Tertullian (ca. 155-220 AD) also held that the Jews had been rejected by God. Similarly, Eusebius (ca. 265-339 AD) held that the promises of Scripture were given to the Gentiles because only the Church was the “true Israel.” This was also the view of St. Augustine (354-430 AD). So, this view didn’t start in the 19th century. It was there from the beginning.
The covenant of the seed (in Genesis 12) is a reference to Christ (see Gal. 3:16). Notice that Abraham is the “father of many nations” (Gen. 17:5), not just one. So the covenant with Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 17:8) is with multiple nations, not just one! And all these are part of the covenant through Abraham’s seed, who is Christ! That’s why Isaiah 61:9 explicitly refers to God’s posterity as the people of the Gentiles:
their offspring will be known among the
nations [Gentiles], And their descendants in
the midst of the peoples. All who see them
will recognize them because they are the
offspring whom the Lord has blessed.
“It is not the children of the flesh … but the children of the promise [who] are regarded as descendants [of Israel]” (Rom 9:6-8). Here’s further proof that the language which was once used for Israel is now used to address the church (cf. Gal. 6:16). In contradistinction to those who don’t believe in Christ, 1 Peter 2:9 is addressing the church who does believe in Christ, saying:
But you are a chosen people, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people for
God’s own possession.
In Colossians 1:26, “the mystery which had been hidden from the past ages and generations, but now has been revealed to His saints” is that the Gentiles are co-inheritors with Israel (cf. Gal 3:28). Ephesians 3:6 says:
This mystery is that through the gospel the
Gentiles are heirs together with Israel,
members together of one body, and sharers
together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
The real controversy about replacement theology is this: is the Bible about Judaism or Jesus? Jews argue that the Bible is not about Christ. Their Dual-covenant theology holds that the Old Covenant remains valid for Jews whereas the New Covenant is only applicable to gentiles.
Bottom line, the Bible is not about a nation or a race. It’s about a person: the God-incarnate Messiah. Those who believe in Christ think that the Bible is about Christ. Those who don’t really believe in Christ think that the Bible is about the nation of Israel. It’s that simple.
What is the argument about? It’s really about whether we pledge allegiance to Moses or to Jesus.
Has Christ been divided?
(1 Corinthians 1:13).
T4T got me reading the Torah AND the Quran
i think my favorite part of making shabbos with my friends is when we pull up sefaria on the tv to answer our questions about the torah portion.
this week it was “why couldn’t we have garlic flavored manna that’s so lame”
anyways shavua tov!
The Kabbalist by Isidor Kaufmann (1853-1921). Jewish Museum, Manhattan.
A good friend of mine's father just passed away. They have a gofundme set up for the funeral, linked below. If you are able to help a Jewish family through their grief, even just by helping take this one thing off their plate, please do. ❤️ Reblogs and shares hugely appreciated. I love you all very much.
Chayenu
Hey Check out Chayenu - a great app to learn Torah every day. https://chayenu.org/app
The Torah is hilarious because one moment you read a passage illustrating how the upcoming king is the best person to ever walk the earth, and a couple chapters in he is starting a civil war because his soldier is more popular than him. (I'm talking about Shaul)