Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh יהוה shall be saved.
Christianity has Lost its Jewish Roots—the Serious Consequences
The English Bible in Mark begins by referring to, “Jesus Christ the Son of God.” Mark 1:1. Nevertheless, would Mary, Joseph, or early followers of Jesus have called him that?The answer is definitely NO, firstly because the letter “J” did not come into the English language until the sixteenth century. Further, as a Jew, Jesus had a Hebraic name, and that was Yehoshua (“Joshua”) or, pYeshua, a shortened Aramaic version.
The first fifteen bishops of the early Church were Jews. By the time Greek-speaking Gentiles gained full control of the Church in the third-century, they significantly minimized Yeshua's Jewish heritage and institute the “new covenant” of Christianity, which required belief in "Jesus". When a Greek name (Iesous, pronounced "ee-ay-soos") replaces his Hebraic name, Jesus is more easily withdrawn from his undeniably Jewish roots, which sets the stage for breaking him from his Jewish persona and Jewish teachings. As a result, many end up perceiving Jesus as being the “first” Christian.
As to the term “Christ,” it is the Anglicized version of the Greek word, Christos, meaning, “anointed one.” Yet again, we see a break from the Hebraic term for anointed one, Moshiach, rendered Messiah in English. Our Saviour's Jewish name and title in Hebrew would be Yehoshua ha Moshiach. Adaptad from Jesus & the professor
The apostle Paul did not desert his Jewish roots by becoming a follower of Yahshuah Messiah . A fundamental defining mark of the Jew was his monotheism, and Paul was as monotheistic as any monotheist, as is perfectly clear from his letters (Ro.16.27; 1Cor.8.6; 8.4; Ro.3.30; Eph.1.3; 3.14; 4.6; 1Tim.1.17; 2.5, etc). As apostle to the Gentiles, Paul saw his mission to be that of bringing Gentiles into “the commonwealth of Israel” through faith in Christ (Eph. 2.12); they thereby become members of “the Israel of God” (Gal.6.16).
But within a hundred years the church had passed from being under dedicated Jewish leadership to becoming a predominantly Gentile church under Gentile leaders. A quantum shift had taken place. The church was now composed of people from a polytheistic background, without the ardent commitment to monotheism characteristic of the Jews. It soon became apparent that the Gentile church was not particularly averse to adding one or two more persons to the Godhead, while nominally acknowledging the monotheistic character of the faith and the Scriptures (both Old and New) that they had inherited from the Jewish church.
The Gentile church moved on boldly with the process of the deification of Yahshuah Messiah in spite of the fact that they could not find one verse in their New Testament which plainly stated that Yahshuah Messiah is Elohim. That trinitarianism could find nothing in the NT that supported them is hardly surprising given the fact that all except one (i.e. Luke) of the writers of the New Testament were Jews. Little wonder that the Nicene Creed, which became determinative for the Christian (Gentile) church, and in which Yahshuah Messiah is raised to full deity so as to be coequal with the Father, does not quote a single verse in support of this new dogma.
Most Christians to this day are unaware of just how feeble the Biblical foundation of trinitarianism is. The Scriptural situation for trinitarianism, where the New Testament is concerned, is put clearly and concisely by J.H. Thayer: “Whether Yahshuah Messiah is called Elohim must be determined from John 1:1; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8f, etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians.” (Thayer Greek-English Lexicon, under θεὸς, sec.2, emphasis added). Yes, 1700 years after the Nicene Creed was established as official church dogma, Christian theologians are still unable to ascertain whether Yahshuah Messiah can be called Elohim according to the New Testament! To put the situation in another way, whether Yahshuah Messiah can be called Elohim depends on the interpretation of a small number of verses, but the validity or correctness of these interpretations is disputed.
But this situation was inevitably the result of the church’s having lost its connection to its Jewish roots. How can one extract trinitarianism from the monotheistic writings of the New Testament? Voluminous efforts expended in countless books and articles could not accomplish this. All that could be (and has been) done was to impose interpretations on the unyielding monotheistic writings that are fundamentally incompatible with them. These interpretations, sitting insecurely on foundations that will not support them, can easily be overturned. Is it not time for the church to return to its monotheistic Jewish foundation rather than continue to try to build something on that foundation that is not compatible with it?The church received Yahweh Elohim’s revelation of Himself as recorded in the Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament. What most Christians today don’t know is that the early church had no other Bible except “the Old Testament”. What was circulated in the early churches were some letters, such as those written by the Apostles Peter and Paul, originally written to specific churches whose names are still attached to them. Some churches may have had one or more of the four gospels we now have. Not until the late 2nd century were these letters and gospels collected together into something like our present NT. What all this means is that the early church was built up on the solid foundation of the monotheism of “the earlier Scriptures”, the Hebrew Bible. The NT writings are likewise firmly built on the foundation of the OT as its many allusions to, and quotations from, the OT show. The inextricably close relationship between the earlier and later Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, finds expression in the saying, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed”.
What we learn in the OT is that Yahweh Elohim created the world and chose a line of faithful individuals through whom He worked out His plans for mankind. Yahweh Elohim began to reveal Himself to these persons and through them to the world. He then chose the people of Israel, not because they were a great nation, but precisely because of their insignificance among the nations (Deut.7.7). This exemplifies the way Yahweh Elohim works as enunciated in 1Corinthians 1.27, “Elohim chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong”. Yahshuah Messiah , Yahweh Elohim’s uniquely “chosen one” (Lk.9.35), was a Jew and so were all his apostles. The first Christian church in Jerusalem was made up of Jews. But the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple in AD 70 by the Roman armies resulted in the end of Israel as a nation for almost 1900 years. The short-lived Bar Kochba uprising against the Romans was put down in 135 AD, with even harsher consequences for the Jewish people in Palestine. The gospel had, however, through the missionary efforts of Paul and others, already been spread far and wide in the Roman Empire. But one result was that the church by the latter part of the 2nd century had become a predominantly non-Jewish church which quickly lost its connections to its Jewish roots. Its leaders had grown up in the religious and cultural atmosphere of paganism and polytheism. Those who had some degree of education had drunk deeply from the fountains of Greek religious and philosophical ideas. These ideas had shaped their minds, and would prove to be difficult to unlearn even when they became Christians. This would, inevitably, have profound consequences when it came to formulating doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity, established as the official dogma of the Gentile church 300 years after Christ, is an almost natural product of this series of events, beginning with the separation of the church from its Jewish origin.
The Bible was now read as though it was a trinitarian book instead of what it really was: a monotheistic one. Every effort was made to find trinitarian proof-texts in the New Testament, even though practically nothing could be found in the Old Testament for this purpose. Accordingly, NT texts were often given a trinitarian meaning without proper reference to their OT background. Even today OT and NT scholarship function as such separate domains (perhaps thanks also to this age of specialization) that there appears to be little interaction between the two. Years ago I met an acquaintance at a library in Cambridge, where he was completing a doctorate in some OT subject. He asked me what I was doing at that time. When I told him that I was studying some questions in the NT, he smiled and said, “Oh, I didn’t think there were any questions left in the NT to study!” Of course he said this jokingly, but that the idea would even cross his mind that there may be no more questions left to study seemed at least to indicate that he did not really know what those questions might be.
The church’s separation from its Jewish roots meant that it no longer knew the religious and cultural atmosphere of the time of Yahshua and his apostles, or of those who wrote the NT. Most Christians today don’t even know what Yahshuah Messiah ’ mother tongue was, or in what language he taught, because they have no idea what was the spoken language in Palestine in Yahshuah Messiah ’ time. Most have not even heard of the word “Aramaic”, let alone know that this was the language which Yahshuah Messiah spoke in his daily life because this was the language spoken in the land of Israel at that time, and for about 500 years before that.
Even in the world of New Testament scholarship insufficient attention has been paid to Aramaic. After all, most theological seminary graduates have scarcely attained even an elementary knowledge of Hebrew, let alone Aramaic, a related but different Semitic language.
Certainly, the importance of Aramaic for the understanding of the NT was known to a relatively small number of scholars (Wellhausen, Burney, M. Black, and others) already before the above mentioned discoveries. But it did not receive the attention it deserved until the impetus given by those new discoveries. Scholars such as M. McNamara (Targum and Testament) have made significant contributions in this direction. Some examples of these contributions are given expression by a group of scholars in their studies published in The Aramaic Bible, ed. D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara, JSOT Press, 1994.
One of the articles in The Aramaic Bible is entitled “The Aramaic Background of the New Testament” by Prof. Max Wilcox. Of the many points he makes at the conclusion of his article is that “the material from the Targumim [Heb. for Targums] and from Qumran should be utilized to the full” (p.377; italics and explanation in brackets added). This is precisely what we intend to do when we come to the crucial study of the “Word” (Logos in Greek; Memra in Aramaic) in John 1.1 and other verses where applicable. But first we need to gain a better understanding of the significance of Aramaic for the study of the Scriptures.
The extremely serious spiritual consequences of the shift away from the Jewish mother church
Few Christians today seem to be aware of the truth that all churches that claim to be “Christian” grew out of the first church at Jerusalem which can, therefore, be appropriately called “the Jewish mother church”. We have an account in the first several chapters of the book of Acts about how that church came into being at Pentecost in or about the year 33 AD. The tragedy is that the mother church would be unable to recognize her “children” if she were to see them as they are today. In regard to the matter of prayer, for example, there is no doubt whatever that the Jewish church knew only the one true Yahweh Elohim and prayed to Him alone and absolutely no one else. The words of Deuteronomy 10.17 would have characterized their concept of the only Yahweh Elohim: “For Yahweh your Elohim is Elohim of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome Yahweh Elohim”; that is to say in the strongest possible terms that Yahweh alone is the one true Elohim. This was epitomized in the Shema (Deut.6.4), which was central to their faith and could never be compromised. The New Jerusalem Bible rightly expresses the spirit of the Shema: “Listen, Israel: Yahweh our Elohim is the one, the only Yahweh.”
What, therefore, would the shock and horror of the Jerusalem mother church be if they could see the non-Jewish churches today? They would find some Christians praying to “God the Father”, who is not the only God because to them there are two other persons who are equally God besides him. They would find most Christians praying to and worshipping Yahshuah Messiah , who is one of the two persons besides “the Father”, and who himself is now “God the Son”. What has happened to the church? Or is this really the church? It now has nothing of spiritual substance in common with the Jerusalem church; almost everything has been changed or distorted.
The early Jewish church certainly loved and honored Yahshuah Messiah as God’s servant (pais, Acts 3.13,26; 4.25,27,30), a title found primarily in the early chapters of Acts and therefore apparently their preferred way of referring to him. But it would have been inconceivable to them that Yahshuah Messiah would have been worshipped alongside Yahweh and on the same level with Him. They saw Yahshuah Messiah as their Savior and friend, whom they could approach as their great high priest who intercedes for them with Yahweh at “the throne of grace” (Heb.4.16). But the Jews did not pray to the high priest, but only to Yahweh, who was “enthroned above the cherubim”, or in the words of king Hezekiah’s prayer, “O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, who is enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone” (Isa.37.16; 2Ki.19.15; 1Chr.13.6; cf. Heb.9.5). We have a record of how the Jerusalem church prayed in a time of crisis: “they lifted their voices together to God and said, ‘Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them…’”, and it is in this prayer that Yahshuah Messiah is referred to twice as “your holy servant Yahshuah Messiah ” (Ac.4.27,30). King David is referred to by the same word “servant” (pais, v.25). They honored Yahshuah Messiah as both “Lord and Christ” (Ac.2.36), but their prayers were not addressed to him; they prayed only to the God who alone is God.
Prayer was not made to Yahshuah Messiah in the NT
This fact should be considered decisive against any argument for Yahshuah Messiah ’ deity. The Jerusalem church both knew and declared that “God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Yahshuah Messiah whom you crucified” (Ac.2.36), but the prayers of this spiritually dynamic church were directed to God, not to Yahshuah Messiah .
When Stephen was being stoned to death he committed his departing spirit to Yahshuah Messiah ’ care (Ac.7.59). Shortly before this he had a vision in which he saw Yahshuah Messiah standing in attendance at the right hand of God as “the Son of man” (Ac.7.56). No matter how exalted a being “the Son of man” might be, no Jewish believer would have prayed to a man, which is essentially what “the son of man” means in both Hebrew and Aramaic. So Stephen’s interaction with the resurrected Yahshuah Messiah is not something on the level of praying to God. It is at most on the level of communicating with a heavenly being in much the same way that John conversed with the angel in the Revelation. This was not something unfamiliar to the Jewish mind. Consider, for example, the extended story of The Rich Man and Lazarus told by Yahshuah Messiah in Luke 16.19-31. Whatever the genre and nature of this story (that is, whether it is factual or not, which does not concern us here), in it Yahshuah Messiah describes how when the rich man died, his spirit departed to Hades and was in torment. There he looked up and saw Abraham. He pleaded with Abraham to send Lazarus to bring him a little “water” to cool his “tongue”; but since the rich man is no longer in the body, clearly “water to cool the tongue” is metaphorical for relief of his spiritual torment. But we need not here discuss the details of this story. The only point of relevance for us is whether this “prayer” to Abraham constitutes prayer according to the NT, and exactly how it differs from Stephen’s “prayer” to Yahshuah Messiah . As far as the Scriptures are concerned, prayer (properly so called) was addressed only to God, “the only God” (Jo.5.44).
It would be quite absurd to suggest that Yahshuah Messiah taught by that story that people should pray to Abraham in time of need. Yet a substantial part of the Christian church endorses “praying” to the saints; and though Abraham is not a “saint” of the church, yet since praying to a saint is praying to a human being, then praying to Abraham should not be a problem for this part of the church. But since the NT church addressed prayer only to God, Yahshuah Messiah story of Lazarus should not be used in the church in support of prayer to the saints. Moreover, a major doctrine about prayer cannot be based upon one story. The rich man in Hades made a plea to Abraham (and for those in Hades without access to God, with whom else could they plead?), but not every plea or request is a prayer.
In Stephen’s case, being a follower of Yahshuah Messiah he had already committed his life to following Yahshuah Messiah and did not need to plead to be accepted again; he was now faithfully following Yahshuah Messiah right into heaven, and giving notice of his coming to him with the words “Yahshuah Messiah , receive my spirit” (Ac.7.59). A much fuller communication was that between Yahshuah Messiah and Saul on the Damascus road (Ac.9.3-7). In another instance, Yahshuah communicated a message of assurance to Paul at Corinth in a vision at night (Ac.18.9,10), but this was apparently a one way communication. The point is that there is simply nothing in the book of Acts that can be cited as evidence for praying to Yahshuah . The same is true for the whole NT. If the Apostolic church thought of Yahshuah as God, then this fact is totally inexplicable. “Maranatha” or “Come, Lord Yahshuah Messiah ” (1Cor.16.22; Rev.22.20) are prayers only if every invitation to “come” is considered a prayer.
Is there anyone here who prays to Yahweh?
This was a question I asked a room full of pastors and preachers. No one raised his/her hand. Yahweh has effectively been eliminated from Christianity. Is this a matter for concern? There is no cause for concern if salvation does not matter to us. What do the Scriptures say?
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh יהוה shall be saved.
Isaiah 42:8 I am Yahweh: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Acts 2.20: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of Yahweh come:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Yahweh shall be saved.
These are quotations from Joel 2.31,32: “The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD (Yahweh) comes. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (Yahweh) shall be saved.”
But do we realize that the statement in Romans 10.13 (and Ac.2.20), which concerns the weighty matter of eternal salvation, refers to calling on Yahweh? But does Yahweh have any place at all in the prayers, thoughts, and lives of Christians today? Has not Yahweh been practically eliminated from Christianity? Has not even the Name “Yahweh” become foreign to us ? How has this come about?
Christianity today has made itself into a self-contained package or system which does not need Yahweh; He is, for all practical purposes, quietly and politely set aside by this system. Within this system Christ is everything, he is center and circumference. He is the object of prayer and worship. For he is the one who came into the world because he loved us, and proved this by giving himself for us; he rose from the dead and took his place of honor beside the Father. By his suffering and the blood of his cross he secured the salvation of all those who have faith in him and call on his name. He is coming again to reign upon the earth together with those who are faithful to him, his saints. This is the trinitarian doctrinal “package”.
Actually, what did the Father do for our salvation, apart from sending Yahshuah Messiah into the world to die? Or did He really need to send him? Was not Yahshuah more than willing to come, whether or not he was sent? But at least the Father did raise him from the dead, or was even that necessary? For does not the Scripture say that death could not keep God’s “holy one” in its grip (Ps.16.10; Ac. 2.27ff); that being the case, would not death be obliged to release him because death could have no hold on the sinless one? Moreover, does not Scripture also say that Yahshuah Messiah is “the everlasting Father” (Isa.9.6)? So the Son is also the Father!
Thus in this Christo-centric, Christ-all-sufficient system, what need is there for the Father, beyond merely acknowledging His existence? After all, without the Father there could be no Trinity; indeed, without the Son there could also be no Trinity. As for the Holy Spirit in this Christo-centric system, he is for all practical purposes an extension of Christ, for is he not called “the Spirit of Christ” (Ro.8.9) or “the Spirit of Yahshuah Messiah ” (Phil.1.19)?
Christ is coeternal and coequal with the Father in every respect but, admittedly, if that is the case, it is not easy to explain why he is called “God the Son”, for a son derives his being from his father, or perhaps it is just because he was called “the son of God” on earth, so the title “the Son” is applied to him retroactively into eternity because there is no other convenient title available. After all, did not Yahshuah Messiah himself speak of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Mat.28.19)?
Since Yahshuah Messiah is coeternal and coequal with the Father, it logically follows that when we use the word “God” it does not necessarily refer to the Father. So when we talk about “God”, or read about God in the OT, it could just as well be referring to Yahshuah Messiah .
From the moment the church declared Yahshuah Messiah to be God they thereby inevitably made the Father redundant. If Yahshuah Messiah is both God and man then he would clearly mean more to us than one who is “only” God, not man. We can relate to a God who is also man far better than one who is only God, for we think we can identify with him because of his humanity. This God-man, therefore, relates to us as man, and is all sufficient as God, so what use does the trinitarian Christian have for the Father who does not have the advantage of being human like the God-man Yahshuah Messiah ? So for all practical purposes we can forget about the Father—if trinitarianism is true. In any case, Christians don’t really know who the Father is, nor does it matter to them because Christ is His image, and this image is more than adequate for them.
Moreover, is not the total sufficiency of Christ for everything in the Christian life and for salvation summed up in the words “Christ is all and in all” in Colossians 3.11?
But the answer to this question is, exegetically speaking, a definite “No, it does not support this trinitarian Christ-all-sufficient system of doctrine.” Look at Colossians 3.11 in full, “Here (in the new man, v.10) there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” This verse addresses specifically the question concerning relationships, especially that of Jew and Gentile, in the church. In the “new man”, which is the church with Yahshuah Messiah as its head, there are no ethnic, cultural, or social distinctions of any kind, because here Yahshuah Messiah is everything that matters to everyone—which is what “all in all” means. It is specifically within the context of the new man that Yahshuah Messiah is all in all.
Ephesians 2.15 addresses the same issue (also Acts 15.5ff) with the words, “that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two (Jew and Gentile), so making peace”. Christ is all that matters in the context of all relationships within the church. This same point is affirmed again in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Yahshuah Messiah .” All this makes it perfectly clear that “Christ is all” is a statement made in the context of relationships within the church, especially that between Jew and Gentile, and is therefore misapplied when made into a universal or cosmic principle. Ultimately, Yahweh God alone will be “all in all” (1Cor.15.28).
The other reason for failing to understand verses like Colossians 3.11 correctly is that Gentiles, generally having an inadequate foundation in the OT, usually have little appreciation for the significance of the Messiah in Scripture. And though “Christ”, like “Messiah”, means “Anointed One”, the significance of this has also evaporated. No Jew could have thought of the Messiah as God, yet Gentiles can readily declare that “Yahshuah Messiah Christ is God” without any hesitation. Here is Colossians 3.11 according to the ancient Syriac Peshitta (Murdock), “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither Greek nor barbarian, neither bond nor free; but the Messiah is all, and in all.”
The loss of Jewish roots meant the loss of pure monotheism, resulting in the trinitarian corruption of the concept of God
What does “God” mean in trinitarianism? Well, it could refer to the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit, or any combination of them (e.g. Father and Son), or all three persons together. But the God of trinitarianism is not a person; he is not even “person” in some generalized sense because “he” is the “substance” of which the three persons consist. To speak of a substance as “he” is contrary to language and logic, for a substance is an “it”. So trinitarianism has reduced “God” to an “it”.
Moreover, since God consists of three persons, he (or rather “it”) should be spoken of as “they”, as would be true of speaking of more than one person in any language. Trinitarianism has so corrupted the meaning of the word “God” that when a trinitarian speaks of God one does not know exactly who he is talking about (i.e. which of the three persons); but in most instances he is likely to be talking about Christ. It is not uncommon for Christians to pray to Yahshuah Messiah and then end their prayer “in Yahshuah Messiah ’ name”!
This fuzzy concept of “God”, allegedly derived from the NT, stands in complete contrast to the God revealed in the Bible, who revealed His Name as “Yahweh”. There is simply nothing that can properly be called “evidence” in the OT in regard to there being “three persons in the Godhead”. If Christians are to be delivered out of their doctrinal fog, they will have to see that their God is simply not Yahweh. And if they wish to equate Yahweh with “the Father” of trinitarianism, then they should realize that Yahweh has no co-equal “Son”, and that His Spirit is not a distinct person from Him. One can certainly call Him “Father”, but not in the trinitarian sense of the word. Sadly, trinitarianism has corrupted even the use of “Father” such that one has to define in which sense the word is being applied to God.
And the same is true in regard to “Son”, a term in Scripture that is applied to the Messiah (meaning God’s “anointed one”) in Psalm 2.2, and with reference to whom Yahweh declares (v.7): “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” “Today” marks an event in time, not eternity (“eternally begotten”), and this event is mentioned in the previous verse, “I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” Yahweh appoints His messianic king to reign over all the nations of the world, even to “the ends of the earth” (v.8ff). This is the basis of Yahshuah Messiah ’ statement in Matthew 28.19f. So the term “Son” describes the Messiah, and not an “eternal Son”.
The church needs to return to Yahweh and put an end to all distortions of the concept of God. Only so can we be delivered from the evil of falsehood and return to the truth which can only be found in Yahweh. “I the LORD (Yahweh) speak the truth; I declare what is right” (Isa.45.19). “Teach me your way, O LORD (Yahweh), that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name” (Psalm 86:11).
Because the words “God” and “Father” have been corrupted by trinitarianism, these terms need to be redefined when the intention is to refer to “the one true God” (John 17.3). Trinitarianism has even robbed us of the vocabulary with which to correctly refer to the only God! Biblical monotheism cannot be expressed by means of trinitarian terminology. How then are we now to refer to Him? Is there any better way than to return to calling on His Name again as “Yahweh”? This may offend some Jews, who have made the pronouncing of His Holy Name taboo according to their tradition—in spite of the fact that their Scriptures instruct them to call on His Name, also commanding them to “swear (i.e. take their solemn oaths) by His Name” (Deut.6.13). Therefore when relating to the Jews one could use their preferred metonym “Adonai” when referring to Yahweh; in any case, to religious Jews generally the word “God” refers to Yahweh when talking about the Bible. People should be free to speak of “Yahweh” or “Adonai”.
There is actually no reason why it is necessary to abide by the man-made prohibition of speaking the Name “Yahweh”. The prohibition is to be rejected because it is un-Biblical as is evident from the obvious fact that the Bible itself delights in abundant references to His Name—some 7000 references in all! It makes no sense whatever to argue that the Name should not be used for fear of misuse when the Scriptures use it with such frequency that “Yahweh” appears several times on almost every page. If anyone brought forward the argument that we should not use money, or a car, or anything else for fear of misusing it, we would surely regard such an argument as quite absurd. Similarly, I doubt if anyone in the United Kingdom, for example, would consider it sensible to suggest that speaking the name “Elizabeth” should be prohibited for fear of insulting her majesty the Queen. On the contrary, do we not delight in speaking the name of the one we love—like the proud father who delights to speak of his son or daughter? It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why the Name of Yahweh appears so frequently in the Scriptures—His people delight in speaking His Name.
Getting to the root of the matter: “Their olive tree”—and ours
But the matter goes even deeper. Yahshuah Messiah summed it up concisely in the words, “salvation is from the Jews” (Jo.4.22). This is not an ethnically motivated statement, but a statement about spiritual reality, as Yahshuah Messiah said, “My words, they are spirit and they are life” (Jo.6.63). To understand his words on the level of the flesh is to misunderstand them. In John, Yahshuah Messiah is very stern with the Jews because of their obstinate unbelief (a sternness also expressed by the great prophets of the OT); because of this some scholars have alleged anti-Semitism in John. But the succinct statement that “salvation is from the Jews” (Jo.4.22) effectively shatters such an allegation. The spiritual point of the reference to the Jews as the conduit of God’s salvation is to put into focus the “salvation history” delineated in the Old Testament. Moreover, the Jews are not a merely dispensable channel of salvation in the sense that once we have received salvation through the Jews, we can dispense with them. “Salvation” and “Jews” are linked in such a way that to be severed from the Jewish “tree” is to be severed from salvation. Let us consider this matter carefully from the Scriptures.
In Romans 11 Paul portrays the people of God as an olive tree whose roots stretch back in Biblical antiquity to Abraham and earlier; these godly men together constitute a holy root (Ro.11.16), rooted in a deep relationship with Yahweh God. Jews are branches of this olive tree, but because of their unbelief some of them were broken off by God (Ro.11.17); but the believing Jews, including Paul, and the members of the early Jewish Church, remain a part of the tree. The breaking off of the unbelieving “branches”, even if many, did not mean that God had rejected Israel as His people. It was with this very fact that Paul started this portion of his letter: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Ro.11.1,2). In God’s wisdom and mercy, the breaking off of those unbelieving branches created an opening into which believing Gentiles could be grafted into the olive tree; this olive tree represents the people God has chosen, also called “the elect” (Ro.11.5,7). In this way “through their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles” (Ro.11.11).
But with this gracious provision of salvation for the Gentiles comes a stern warning:
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you (Ro.11).
Salvation is portrayed as being grafted into “the olive tree” and drawing spiritual life and nourishment from its root. A branch stays alive only so long as it remains firmly grafted in the tree; no branch can survive being cut off from the tree. To remain in this tree is life; to be cut off from it is death. Yahshuah Messiah the “deliverer” or “redeemer”, is an essential part of this tree (cf.Ro.11.26; Isa.59.20, etc); therefore, to be united with Christ through faith is another way to explain how one is grafted into the tree. That is why in John 15.1ff Yahshuah Messiah also speaks in terms of a Vine and its branches. Grafting is a regular procedure in viticulture; it is Yahweh God who grafts in or cuts off, because He is the “vinedresser”: As Yahshuah Messiah said, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser” (Jo.15.1). He also warned that unfruitful branches could be cut off and thrown away, “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned” (Jo.15.6, NIV); but “whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit” (v.5).
What all this means is that to be cut off from the spiritual “olive tree” (or “vine”, cf.Isa.5.1-7) of Israel is to be cut off from salvation, whether he be Jew or Gentile, which is precisely what Paul warns could happen, and has happened to unbelieving Jews (Ro.11.22). Here is the whole passage:
19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. In spite of these perfectly plain statements, there is no lack of Christians, especially in certain Protestant circles, who maintain that they cannot be cut off from salvation under any circumstance! How blind can one be even in the light of the clear language of Scripture?
On the other hand, those Jews who are willing to return to their God will be grafted back into the olive tree: 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Notice these last words, “their olive tree”, for it was theirs by God’s grace in the first place, although it also becomes the Gentile’s by God’s grace, by their being grafted into it through faith; for it is through faith that we become members of “the Israel of God” (Gal.6.16). When we are grafted into the olive tree through faith, then “their olive tree” also becomes our olive tree.
Gal.3 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Rom.2 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Rom.4 12 (The purpose was) to make him (Abraham) the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Rom.9 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
Phil.3 3 For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Yahshuah Messiah and put no confidence in the flesh.
Can we grasp what the Apostle is saying in all these passages? Is he not declaring that it is through faith that a person becomes a descendant of Abraham, and “heirs according to promise” (Gal.3.29)? It is by faith, not physical descent, that one becomes a child of God. Being a Jew is not a matter of race or religion but “a matter of the heart” (Ro.2.29), so being an Israelite is not a matter of physical descent from Israel; to belong to Israel is a matter of being “children of the promise” (Ro.9.8) through faith. So he tells the Philippians, a proportion of whom were Gentiles, “we are the real circumcision”. “Circumcision” was another word used to describe Jews (Eph.2.11; Col.4.11; Ro.3.30; 4.9, etc), so Paul is saying to the Philippians, “you and I, we are the real Jews”.
The point is that the true believer (not just any Christian) is the real Jew before God, the spiritual Jew whose praise comes from God, not man (Ro.2.29). Becoming a believer is to become a true Israelite, a real Jew! Little wonder that Paul declared that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal.3.28; Col.3.11)—there are only real Israelites, the true descendants of Abraham (Gal. 3.29), the heirs of God’s promises, the chosen people of God, the spiritual Jews! In the church of God there are only spiritual Israelites, all of whom are circumcised in heart (Ro.2.28,29; Phil.3.3) even though not all were circumcised in the flesh. James Dunn, in his large commentary on the Greek text of Romans, puts this in theological language when he writes of “the Christian Gentile rejoicing in the gift of the eschatological Spirit—the eschatological Jew is Gentile as well as Jew!” (Romans, Word Biblical Commentary, Word Publishing, 1991, p.125, re. Ro.2.28,29).
The Apostle Peter wrote to encourage persecuted believers by reminding them that “you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1Pt.2.9). In this verse the terms applied to Israel in the OT are applied to the church (still largely made up of Jews when 1Peter was written); what Peter writes echoes a passage like Deuteronomy 7.6, “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth” (cf. Mal.3.17, etc).
It should now be clear that when speaking about “Jewish roots” we are not speaking primarily about Judaism in its various forms but in particular about the Scriptures which the Jews have zealously guarded, preserved, and transmitted with utmost care throughout the centuries. Their unwavering commitment to the word of God and to monotheism is something which should put the church to shame. The Jewish root is the rich spiritual heritage made available to us, above all through the Jewish Scriptures.
Yahweh has chosen in His wisdom and kindness to provide life through the Jewish root. We do well to remember that no branch can survive if severed from the tree. And if now we realize, even if we have never realized it before, that we are the true Israelites, the real Jews, then why would we want to be severed from the olive tree into which God has graciously grafted us?
That Gentiles became Jews through conversion was something the Jews were familiar with; it was through the process of proselytizing (i.e. converting people to Judaism) that Gentiles entered into the Jewish religion. This was accomplished through the vigorous missionary efforts of Judaism. Yahshuah Messiah pointed to the missionary zeal of the Pharisees who “travel over land and sea to win a single convert” (Mat.23.15). Anyone visiting Israel even today will see Jews who are black (e.g. from Yemen) as well as Jews who are white, both among its civilians as well as in the army. For the Jews, being a Jew was not exclusively or even primarily a matter of race but of religion. The New Testament concept differs from theirs not on the question on whether Gentiles can become Jews, but on how the transition is made; Paul proclaims that it is through faith in Christ. This is stated clearly in Ephesians 2:
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth (or, citizenship, membership) of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Yahshuah Messiah you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
In Christ, then, we are no longer “alienated from the people of Israel” (BDAG, politeias, re. Eph.2.12), but are now members of God’s elect people. “‘The Israel of God’ is still God’s covenant people…into whom believing Gentiles are being incorporated” (Dunn, Romans, p.540, re. Ro.9.6). The profound consequence of this incorporation into Israel is that the Gentile, who is now a member of “the real circumcision” (Phil.3.3), is no longer a “stranger to the covenants of promise” (Eph.2.12), but becomes “the Gentile convert entering into Israel’s promised blessings” (Dunn, Romans, p.534, re. Ro.9.4). Everything that God promised Israel becomes ours in Christ (2Cor.1.20). So Paul could say that in Christ “all things are yours” (1Cor.3.21), such is the unimaginable riches of our inheritance: “as it is written: ‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him’ {Isaiah 64:4}” (1 Corinthians 2.9, NIV); so there is abundant cause to give “thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light” (Colossians 1.12).
Yet there are very few Christians today who realize that the true believer is “the real circumcision”, the true Israelite. This shows how completely disconnected the Christian church is from its Jewish roots and from the New Testament teaching on this vital matter. Let us remember: no branch can survive once it is cut off from the tree and its roots—here we are, of course, speaking about spiritual life and survival. Little wonder that the Gentile church, having separated from its Jewish roots, strayed into serious doctrinal error. Error leads to death; it is time to realize this and to heed the word of God, “come back to Yahweh your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, rich in faithful love, and he relents about inflicting disaster” (Joel 2.13). Yahweh, the God of Israel, is not only the God of the Jews but of all who belong to “the Israel of God” (Gal.6.16), God’s spiritual Israel. Sadly, most Christians scarcely know His Name, but the true Israelite will aim to love Him wholeheartedly (Mk.12.30, etc) and learn to honor His name, for “it is wonderful” (cf.Judg.13.18; Isa.28.29, etc).
No comments:
Post a Comment