Scripture – Hermeneutics

Jesus Was Not A Jew

“We’ve got to have a historical understanding. The Word “Jew” is greatly misused, misunderstood, and mistaken today. If fact I will tell you that there is a vast difference between the way that term is used in the Bible and the way it is used today. The very first occurrence of the word occurs is in II Kings 16:6. This is the very first time the word “Jew” is used in our Bibles.

“At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.” KJV

Note if you will the phrase “he drave the Jews from Elath.” Now if you were to read the entire context of II Kings 16 you would find that there was a war between Israel (more explanation later) the Northern tribes and the Syrians against Judah. What happened here is this; there were some Judahites that were living in Elath and so the King of Syria defeated them and drove them from Elath. That’s all vs. 6 means.

Now the Hebrew word translated “Jew” here is the Hebrew word, “הַיְהוּדִ֖ים (hay·hū·ḏîm),” which literally means a Judahite or a descendent of Judah. Now the word is used in the Bible at least 5 ways

1.) Refers to a person or persons of the tribe of Judah
2.) Refers to the Kingdom of Judah
3.) To the land of Judea
4.) The the nation of Judah
5.) The House of Judah

Anyone belonging to the tribe, the land, the nation or the house of Judah could be called a “Judahite.” So all that II Kings 16:6 says is that there were some folks of the house of Judah or of the tribe of Judah or of the land of Judah or of the King of Judah that were in Elath and the King of Syria drove them out of the land.

Now when you come to the New Testament the Greek word is Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaios) which means “Judean” and that means Judean in the sense of a country or a land or someone from the land of Judah. For instance, we talk about Samaria being the Capital of the Northern Kingdom. What do we call people who lived in Samaria? We call them “Samaritans.”

So the “Judeans,” or the “Judahites” would be someone of the tribe or house of Judah or someone who lived in the land of Judah.

Now what we do today is this is that when we use the word “Jew” today it is not used to refer to someone who is the house or tribe or land or Kingdom of Judah. No, instead we use the word “Jew” today to primarily refer to someone who embraces the religion of Judaism.

For instance look in your Bibles to Galatians 1. This is one of the few times that you will see the word “Jew” used to refer to the religion of Judaism. Most of the time in both the Old Testament and New Testament the word “Jew” just refers to someone from the land, house, kingdom or tribe of Judah. Now in Galatians 1:13 Paul says,

“For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.…”

Now the Jewish religion, or “Judaism” was antagonistic to and contrary to the Christian faith. It was “Judaism”… it was the Pharisees and the Sadducees and all who embraced the religion of “Judaism” who always opposed Jesus and the Apostles and the Prophets.

Now we need to listen up here. We are not and cannot be considered to be Judeo-Christians. We simply are not because Christianity has never had anything to do with Judaism. Moreover, as Western Christians we are not connected to the land of Judea and as such we are not Judeo-Christians. No, we are Christians.

If one wants to talk about the OT influence on Christianity you might talk about Hebrew Christians or maybe even Israelite Christians or even just historic Christianity but you would never talk about being Judeo-Christian. However, to talk about Judeo-Christianity is to mix two things that cannot be mixed by definition. Judaism adamantly opposes Christianity and Christianity adamantly opposed Judaism and they are not and never will be the same.

So, let us say it plainly then…. Jesus Christ was not a Jew. Jesus was a Judahite, that is He was from the tribe of Judah but He was not a Jew because he did not embrace Judaism as a religion. He was never in the Jews religion. Indeed, if you read your Bibles you will discover that one reason the enemies of Jesus were so upset with Him was because He was always attacking what the Pharisees had done to God’s religion as stated in the OT. You see this attack on the Jews, by Jesus the Judahite in Matthew 5, 15, 23, and elsewhere in the NT.

Years ago you would see bumper stickers that said, “My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter.” That should make us cringe since Christ was not Jewish but a Judahite. Jesus never taught Judaism as it comes now from the Talmud. Jesus stood opposed to the traditions of the Elders that is the definition of Judaism since the traditions of the Elders replaced the OT religion that pointed to Jesus the Christ.

So, Judaism, and Pharisee-ism and Talmudism is a perversion of the OT. These follow the traditions of the Fathers and not the Word of God. It was Judaism that repeatedly attacked Jesus and the Apostles. It was Judaism that killed the Prophets, killed Jesus and the Apostles and continues to kill those who lift up Jesus.

Thus when in the NT you read the word “Jew” usually it refers to someone who is of the house, tribe, land, or Kingdom of Judah. It has nothing to do with Judaism as a religion. There are a couple of exceptions to this where it refers to the Jewish religion.”

Rev. John Weaver
Jesus Was Not A Jew

Further here, we note that even the Jews of Jesus age did not think of Jesus as a Jew. R. T. France, in his worthy commentary of the Gospel of Matthew offers, seven differences between Jesus of Nazareth, the Galilean and the Jews

“Racially the area of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel had had, ever since the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century B.C., a more mixed population, within which more conservative Jewish areas (like Nazareth and Capernaum) stood in close proximity to largely pagan cities, of which in the first century the new Hellenistic centers of Tiberias and Sepphoris were the chief examples.

Geographically Galilee was separated from Judea by the non-Jewish territory of Samaria, and from Perea in the southeast by the Hellenistic settlements of Decapolis.

Politically Galilee had been under separate administration from Judea during almost all its history since the tenth century B.C. (apart from a period of “reunification” under the Maccabees), and in the time of Jesus it was under a (supposedly) native Herodian prince, while Judea and Samaria had since A.D. 6 been under the direct rule of a Roman prefect.

Economically Galilee offered better agricultural and fishing resources than the more mountainous territory of Judea, making the wealth of some Galileans the envy of their southern neighbors.

Culturally Judeans despised their northern neighbors as country cousins, their lack of Jewish sophistication being compounded by their greater openness to Hellenistic influence.

Linguistically Galileans spoke a distinctive form of Aramaic whose slovenly consonants (they dropped their aitches!) were the butt of Judean humor.

Religiously the Judean opinion was that Galileans were lax in their observance of proper ritual, and the problem was exacerbated by the distance of Galilee from the temple and the theological leadership, which was focused in Jerusalem.

The result, R. T. France offer, is that

“even an impeccably Jewish Galilean in first-century Jerusalem was not among his own people; he was as much a foreigner as an Irishman in London or a Texan in New York. His accent would immediately mark him out as “not one of us,” and all the communal prejudice of the supposedly superior culture of the capital city would stand against his claim to be heard even as a prophet, let alone as the “Messiah,” a title which, as everyone knew, belonged to Judea (cf. John 7:40-42).”

The above is not merely ho-hum context for the life and times of Jesus the Messiah. The above provides the necessary lay of the ground over which the battle would occur between Jesus and the Jews. The first two Gospels structure their whole narratives in terms of this tension between North (Galilee) and South (Jerusalem).

Professor France writes: “To read Matthew in blissful ignorance of first-century Palestinian sociopolitics is to miss his point. This is the story of Jesus of Nazareth,” and not Jesus the Jew.

Pilate at the end of Jesus’ life put a sign over the head of Jesus saying, Jesus was “The King of the Jews.” However this was done by Pilate as a thumb in the eyes of the Jews. It was sarcasm meant to attack the Jews. It was not done because Pilate believed it. It was done in order to mock the Jews. The fact that the Jews so earnestly desired to have it altered is proof that they did not consider Jesus a Jew.

Jesus Himself, seemed to work diligently to not be known as a Jew. All of the disciples that Jesus chose were Galileans except for one Jew named Judas Iscariot.

So, we rightly note that “Jesus was not a Jew.”

So, if Jesus was not a Jew, what was He?

Well, His Jew enemies called him a “Galilean,” and a “Nazarene,” in order to indicate Jesus was distinct from them. The enemies of Jesus said “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “By the prince of the demons He drives out demons.” The enemies of Jesus implied Jesus was a Bastard (John 8:41). The Jews, as the enemies of Jesus did not recognize Jesus as a Jew. All of this is illustrates the truth of prophetic Scripture when it said that Jesus would be despised and rejected of men. This is why Scripture teaches that “He came unto His own, but His own received Him not.”

So, if Jesus was not a Jew, what was He?

I would say we should refer to our Lord as a Hebrew, or, as an Israelite, or as the long awaited descendant of Judah through the line of David.

Scripture Alone & Roman Catholicism

“It is the original lie of Satan that God, speaking in his Word, needs an interpreter to give man infallible guidance (Gen. 2: 17; 3: 4). This ancient error now is supreme in the Roman Catholic Church. Thus the Baltimore Catechism (Q. 1328) asks:

“How can we know the true meaning of the doctrines contained in the Bible?”

Answer: “We can know the true meaning . . . from the Catholic Church which has been authorized by Jesus Christ to explain His doctrines, and which is preserved from error in its teachings by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.”

Thus, while affirming that God has spoken to men in the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that God has not made clear what he means, and so above the Word of God must stand the authoritative interpretation of the Church (which, we are to presume, has an expert opinion about what God’s Word means). This also means that Rome would have us trust in the clear word of man rather than the obscure Word of God.

The Reformed faith views the matter precisely in reverse, holding that Scripture alone expresses divine truth with perfect clarity, and so regarding the Scriptures alone as finally authoritative. The interpretation of the Church (as in its creeds) must always, therefore, be regarded as less than a perfectly clear expression of divine truth, and as necessarily subordinate to Scripture. The authority of creeds is determined by Scripture, not determinative of Scripture. They have authority only if, and to the extent that, they truly are faithful to Scripture.”

G.I. Williamson

The Westminster Confession of Faith: for Study Classes

1.) Now add the reality that if the average layperson needs the Roman Catholic Church to tell him what Scripture means because God’s speaking is so opaque in God’s inspired special Revelation (Scripture) how is the average layperson supposed to understand the uninspired interpretation of what God speaks in His Word as given by the Church without someone else explaining to him what the Church means when it interprets God’s perspicuous word. In other words this reasoning falls into an infinite regress. If man is not capable of understanding God’s spoken Word aright and so needs an interpreter then it is only reasonable to believe that man is not capable of understanding the interpreter of God’s Word aright and so needs yet another interpreter to interpret the original interpreter’s interpretation of God’s Word…. ad infinitum.

Are we to believe that the Roman Catholic Church can explain with more clarity than the God of the universe?

2.) The Roman Catholic church has made so many errors in Church history that it is laughable that they want to insist that they have been preserved in their teachings from error by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. Whether it is the embrace of purgatory (nowhere taught in Scripture) or the embrace of relics (nowhere taught in Scripture) or having Mary as a co-redemptrix or mediatrix (nowhere taught in Scripture) the history of the Roman Catholic church is one error after another.

3.) It is a pretty good gig to be in the position as an Institution to give yourself the ability to be the one in charge of what God does or does not say. Rome, when it makes this move, has indeed ascended to the seat of God. It really doesn’t matter what God says if Rome is the one with the final authority of what God says and means. Honestly, it seems beyond obvious that with this doctrine of the Church having authority over Scripture that the Roman Catholic Institutional Church has made itself to be God. With this false doctrine promulgated by Rome it is the case that in the Church we live and move and have our being.

4.) This doctrine underscores another doctrine by Rome and that is their doctrine that their is no salvation outside the Church of Rome. This is an obvious implication of the above authority over Scripture. If the Church is God’s final interpreter of God’s mind then it is obvious that to be out of fellowship with the Roman Catholic Church is to be out of fellowship with God. This Roman Catholic doctrine of being the “mouth of God” keeps people who really believe this chained as slaves inside the Roman Catholic whore of a “church.” If one really believed this doctrine one would never leave Rome no matter what demonic deviation Rome might insists that God really says.

5.) Of course this issue was the formal principle of the Reformation. While “Justification by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone” was the material principle of the Reformation (the fuse that was lit that set the whole thing off) behind the material principle was the formal principle which was a dispute of where the authority lie in order to determine where to find the mind of God. Rome, following their epistemological doctrine that the Church is the ultimate authority, the Reformers insisted that the epistemological authority for men is the written word of God.

A Few Words On The Relationship Between Old Testament and New Testament

Whereas in the Old Covenant the progress of Redemption covers over a millennium and is concerned with the ongoing process that repeatedly points to the growing understanding of the Messiah and His work, the New Testament is not about process but is concerned with revealing that end point of the progress of Redemption.

It’s the difference between reading a novel in its beginning chapters and discovering and working through the inciting incident (Genesis 3), and the rising action (conflict between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (Gen. 3 – Malachi), and the climax of the novel where all is resolved (Gospels). Yet, even in the New Testament there remains a progress of Redemption inasmuch as we read and see the movement of the incarnation and humiliation of Christ to the exaltation/ascension-session of Christ. Then from there the progress of Redemption continues with the growth of the body of the ascended Christ (Acts-Revelation).

The OT, thus has a different kind of progress of Redemption theology than the NT because it is process, while the NT progress of Redemption is end point or climax, though as we have seen the idea of redemptive progress is not completely absent from the New Testament. However, it is the progress of Redemption accomplished and applied as opposed to the progress of redemption anticipated.

And yet because the Scripture is written with a proleptic dynamic (the reality is in the anticipatory events) even the progress of Redemption retains a end point feel. Because the Gospel is part of one story that begins in Genesis and because all men throughout history have been saved by the same blood of Christ the Gospel climax that is most illuminated in the New Covenant is already present in the Old Covenant like the promissory spark that will eventually become a five alarm fire.

Francis Roberts Arguing that the Noahic Covenant is a Gracious Covenant

While this (taking the Noahic covenant as a common grace covenant) is a common construction among many today (think R2K) (17th century Puritan) Francis Roberts rather understands the Noahic covenant as an ‘expressure’ of the Covenant of Grace. Roberts will write of a double covenant made with Noah, one before the flood, in which God covenanted to save him and his household, and one after the flood ‘superadded’ to the former covenant. In this second instance of covenanting, several things are noticed that indicate not common, but special saving grace. The first is the occasion of it, that God ‘smelled the sweet savor’ of Noah’s sacrifice, as the outward moving cause of it, which indicates an appointment to Christ and His sacrifice, the inward ‘moving cause’ being God’s ‘mere grace and commiserating mercies’ to Noah. Second, the parties covenanting are the appeased God on the one hand, smelling that ‘savor of rest’ and second, Noah and his sons, and their ‘seed.’ Third, the matters covenanted consist on God’s part that He will not again destroy all flesh. For Noah and his sons, on their part, and especially in reference to the ‘seed,’ to believe God’s gracious dealing in this promise, but more to believe in Christ, the true sacrifice as the one who appeases God’s wrath and restores rest to the perishing and cursed creature, preserving God’s gracious design. Fourth, the token of the covenant, the rainbow in the cloud, concerning which Roberts declares, ‘So then the rainbow which physically and naturally denotes rain theologically, supernaturally and by institution signifies fair weather and security from rain and flood.’ ”

God’s Covenants: The Mystery & Marrow of the Bible Vol 1 — p. 36
Rev. Dr. Todd Ruddell — Preface

Andy Stanley Does His Best Taylor Swift Impersonation

Yesterday while listening to the radio the DJ said that a few years ago it was reported that the pop singer Taylor Swift said something mind-numbingly profound;

“Sometimes I think that Love Songs are just poetry put to music.”

Recently, Rev. Andy Stanley gave us a similar Brainiac type statement while speaking at the Dallas Theological Seminary when answering a question from an interviewer about the historicity of Adam and Eve.

“The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history. The issue is always, Who is Jesus? That’s always the issue. The Scriptures are simply a collection of ancient documents that tell us that story so when we talk about the Scriptures and especially the reliability of the Scriptures I think that any time that we can tie the Old Testament especially back to Jesus we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know you know what you can believe that the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth, so what, who is Jesus? To get to your point, when I deal with Adam and Eve, I am quick to say, “Hey this is one of those odd stories” This is that story you heard growing up about two naked people running around in the garden, and who can believe that? There are many creation myths. But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say. So what have I communicated, I have communicated that even if we talk about Genesis and the Garden of Eden, the issue is, “Who is Jesus? And I think any time that we can weave that small little apologetic in our teaching and preaching, it helps our high school students and it helps our college students understand the foundation of my faith is not an infallible Bible, but it is something that happened in history, Jesus came into the world, walked on the earth, represented God, was God, and rose from the dead. And that is a very, very important piece of, a very, very important part of our approach to the Scripture every single week.”

Bret responds,

Here Stanley tries to rip apart redemption from revelation. Sure, the foundation of our faith is something that happened in History (i.e. — Redemption provided in Christ) but I could not know about Redemption apart from Revelation (Scripture). So Stanley introduces a false dichotomy between Redemption and Revelation suggesting that our foundation is the Redemptive act but denying the Revelation that communicates to us the reality of the Redemptive act and its meaning. It is the case that God not only acted in History in the person and work of Christ but also we have to understand that God also speaks (interprets) His acts in History through the Revelation that is in Scripture alone.

So, on one hand, we can say “yes” the “issue is always Jesus” but that issue can only be known to us by the fully inerrant, infallible, trustworthy Bible that has the quality of verbal plenary inspiration. For Andy Stanley to miss this simple truth either communicates that Stanley is a moron of epic proportions or that Stanley is epistemologically self-consciously pursuing an agenda that will leave him and his followers who embrace this thinking in Hell. Since I am a kind person who wants to think the best of people, I’ll conclude that Andy Stanley is a moron or epic proportions.

So, the foundation of our Faith is Jesus who can only be known by the Bible. The fact that Stanley desires to refer the Bible as “simply a collection of ancient documents” tells us all we need to know about Stanley as a trustworthy minister. There are all kinds of ancient documents laying around. Given Stanley’s statement why should the bible as being simply a collection of ancient documents, to be preferred above, say, the Bhagavad Gita which is also simply a collection of ancient documents?

Frankly, I find it amazing that such an idiotic statement by Stanley could fool anyone. But… such is the culture we live in.

I especially love this chestnut from the Stanley quote above;

“But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say.”

1.) Which being interpreted means; (My interpretation is in the bold)

“But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because (THE BIBLE SAYS SO IN THE) Gospels. In the Bible in the Gospels Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say.”

a.) Consider that Jesus learned about Adam and Eve IN THE BIBLE.
b.) Jesus talked about Adam and Eve because they were IN THE BIBLE.
c.) Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection as we learn IN THE BIBLE
d.) Other ancient documents have Jesus saying things that are not recorded in the Bible. Why doesn’t Andy believe those things that are not IN THE BIBLE?

Really, the stupidity here is so epic that one can hardly keep a straight face while typing these words. Andy Stanley has NOTHING on Taylor Swift. Indeed, I am now wondering if anybody has ever seen Andy Stanley and Taylor Swift together in the same room at the same time?

2.) Yes, all of Jesus life, death, resurrection, and ascension has happened in history but the only reason I know this is because “the B-I-B-L-E tells me so.”

Really the guy is a giant Moron masquerading as a Pastor. I can’t believe what has happened to our ministerial corps. It’s like being part of a Zombie regiment.

But not to worry Andy … if the ministry ever goes south for you Pop Music can always use another voice.