[Playing ReligionA ‘Form of Godliness’]

Playing Religion
A ‘Form of Godliness’

Today our Scriptures seem to have become a smorgasbord from which we may select what fits our fancy. We have entered the burgeoning world of ’playing religion.’ Paul speaks of this when he gives us one of his longest lists of vices characterizing the faithless, a list that includes “holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power” (2 Timothy3:5).What does it mean to “hold to a form of godliness?” It means that there is outward show (morphosis) of religion. One cannot help but collate Paul’s words here with those of Yeshua in Matthew 7:22,

Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?”

Indeed, those who protest before the Judge of all the Earth are those who have lived a very religious life. Everything they did was in the name of Yeshua. Yet what is the Master’s response?

And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice
lawlessness” (Matthew 7:23)

This is actually a quote from Psalm 6:8(9). David cries out, “Depart from me all you workers of iniquity (aven).” The Gospel account is given to us in Greek, and in this case, the quote from Psalm 6 is from the Lxx (Septuagint). The word ‘iniquity’ from the Psalm is translated by the Lxx with the word ‘lawlessness’ (anomia), from the Greek word nomos, usually translated ‘law’ in our English Bibles. It is this word that is most often used in the Lxx to translate ‘Torah.’ When preceded by the Greek alpha (used much like our English “un” meaning “not”), anomos becomes “no Torah.”

Those who received the condemnation of the Master were those who were busy ‘playing religion,’ but whose lives were characterized by a willful neglect and distain for God’s Torah. If ever there were a text of Scripture that should cause us to tremble, this is certainly one!
Paul says that those who have merely the outward form of godliness have actually denied the power that produces genuine godliness. What is this power? For the Apostle, the power of God is manifested in a life of righteousness that results from the work of the Spirit in the inner man. As an example, note Paul’s heartfelt prayer for the Ephesian believers.¹⁰
Any attempt to conform one’s life to God’s righteous standards without the Spirit’s empowering work will always be doomed to failure. This is because at the core of obedience to God is a willingness to die to oneself—something patently contrary to our natural way of thinking. Loving God with all of one’s heart leaves no room for self-centeredness, and it is the gracious work of the Spirit in the hearts of God’s elect that brings about this death-to-self (Romans 6:1—11). The power to which Paul refers is the living and abiding presence of the Spirit by which the life of the risen Messiah manifests itself through the actions of His people.
This is illustrated in the lives of Yeshua’s disciples as they lived out the truth of the Gospel. In Acts 3, Peter and John were proclaiming the resurrection of Yeshua in the Temple precincts at the minchah (the afternoon Temple service), and a man, lame from his birth, was healed. Of course, the Sadducees were upset because many of the people were receiving the message of the Gospel, so they arrested Peter and John and put them in jail. The next day, at the trial, they were asked: “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” (Acts 4:7). Peter, empowered by the Spirit, gave the answer:

Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Yeshua Messiah the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead- by this Name this man stands here before you in good health.
(Acts 4:8-10)

But what really amazed the Temple priests was that Peter and John displayed such authority and power even though they were not among the leading Sages of the day,

Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Yeshua. (Acts 4:13)

The same power of life and righteousness that had characterized Yeshua as He lived and taught among the people was now evident in the lives of His disciples.

The Call to Submission

Today many of us find ourselves in a renewed pursuit of the truth. We have come to realize that the power of the Scriptures has been diminished through millennia of theologies and methods of interpretation. We’re simply trying to discover what the Bible- all of it- means and how we are to obey it. This perspective of the Scriptures, I think, is part of what Isaiah is speaking about when He talks of one ‘trembling’ at the Word of God. Actually, this Hebrew word ‘tremble’ can mean “to be afraid, or to shake with fear,” but it can also mean to be “anxious” and even to “pursue after something with a certain heightened expectation.” We come to the Scriptures with the anticipation that it contains the very words of God that we have not yet heard nor understood. We handle it as though it is a precious and delicate masterpiece- because it is!
Furthermore, we tremble to think we are privileged to hold it in our hands. Like the violinist who holds a priceless Stradivarius, we lift the Scriptures to our chin and tremble to think what music it will play. And oh, what music it plays! It reaches to the very bone and marrow, and divides between the thoughts and intents of our heart.¹¹ It brings forth treasures we could have never imagined, and it overwhelms our soul with the eternal.¹² When we read it, study it and meditate upon it, the unchanging wisdom of God inundates us with all the wonder of a divinely composed symphony. We tremble at the magnificence of God Himself, and of His grace, for sharing His thoughts with us. For the Scriptures become to us the living breath of the Almighty, not just ancient words cast in the context of ancient societies and language. It stands fully relevant in our 21st Century, speaking to us in tones that resonate deeply in our spirits. Isaiah’s words therefore ring in our ears. Trembling at God’s Word means recognizing that His Word is not ‘manageable.’ It comes to us in the power of the Spirit as an overwhelming call to submission, as something far bigger than we are. It displays the awesome heart of our King, Who has called all of us into covenant relationship with Himself, and who therefore subdues our minds with the grandeur of His omnipotence and eternal wisdom. With humbled hearts we respond to Him, “Speak Lord, your servant is listening.” And He responds by handing us His revealed Word as honeycomb, and kindly says. Eat all of it.”



Endnotes
1 mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1
2 See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapters xix and xcii
3 Daniel P. Fuller, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” (Doctor’s dissertation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1957), p. 25.
4 L. S. Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas:
Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.
5 Matthew 28:19-20
6 Luke 6:40
7 Ephesians 2:11-13
8 Ephesians 2:19; 3:6
9 I use the term ‘old-line Dispensationalism’ because in recent years some of the scholars among dispensational schools have forged a new presentation of dispensationalism called ‘Progressive Dispensationalism.’ in which they attempt to answer the nagging questions posed to this hermeneutic by the Biblical text itself. Note Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Baker Books, 1993).
10 See Ephesians 3:16-19
11 Hebrews 4:12
12 Matthew 13:52
13 Ezekiel 3:3

[Erroneous Hermeneutics]

Erroneous Hermeneutics

Such beliefs today are, in part, the result of various methods of interpreting the Bible. One such method is called “dispensationalism.” The core of this hermeneutic is the axiom that God required different standards of obedience in different eras or dispensations. What pleased Him in one era may be different in another era. Actually, this same perspective is found quite early in the Church’s history. For example, Justin Martyr (110-165 CE), in his Dialogue with Trypho ²,  uses this argument. He suggests that since people pleased God without observing the Sabbath before God gave the Torah, it is logical to presume that people could do so in a later era, after Messiah’s advent. This remains a pillar of dispensational theology.

In the dispensational scheme of things one’s first duty when studying the Scriptures is to discern between what was given to God’s people in the current era. In essence, significant parts of the Scriptures are therefore rendered unessential. It is upon this basis that the neglect of the Sabbath, festivals and food laws, for example, can occur without any twinge of conscience. To dispensationalists, these rules were for another era – they don’t apply to us.

While though the motive of those who developed this hermeneutic was to make the Scriptures relevant, just the opposite occurred. Once a person comes to believe that parts of the Scripture are no longer directly applicable to his life, he has subtly undermined the authority of God’s divine Word. When one is comfortable with viewing one part of Scripture as non-applicable, it is inevitable and logical that they might just as easily set aside other Scriptures that seem archaic or irrelevant.
A bi-product of such dispensational theology is the erroneous pillar which marks separation and distinction between Israel and the Church. Fuller writes:

. . . the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity.³

Chafer gives a fuller explanation of this fundamental pillar of dispensational theology:

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.⁴

We may therefore state that two of the primary pillars of dispensational theology are:
1) that God requires different standards of righteousness for different dispensations
or eras
- and -
2) that Israel and the Church are always distinct, and that God’s purposes and requirements for each are therefore also distinct.

The dispensationalist’s need to maintain the distinction between Israel and the Church means that the walk (way of life) given to Israel is ‘distinct from that required of the Church.’ It is understandable, therefore, why those who accept dispensationalism would naturally consider the Torah to be something that applies to Israel, but not to the Church. And their logical next step asserts that the New Covenant (understood as the ‘New Testament’) forms the “way of life” for the Church today.

Dividing the Scriptures

This method of interpretation, however, runs into trouble when scrutinized under the magnifying glass of biblical exegesis. For starters, the Bible of the Apostles was the Tanakh (OT), and they constantly appeal to their Bible (the OT) as the basis for faith and way of life, not only for Israel, but also for the Gentiles who were grafted in. When Yeshua gave the orders to His disciples to make disciples of all the nations, He instructed them to teach these new disciples “everything that I have commanded you.”⁵ The way of life given to the disciples was the same way of life they were to teach those who would become disciples from among the nations. Their way of life was that which mirrored Yeshua’s life.⁶ It was that complete faithfulness and observance of Torah commands.
Moreover, Paul repeatedly taught there was one family of God, not two, and that the Gentiles coming to faith had joined the “commonwealth of Israel” having been “brought near”⁷ by faith in Yeshua. He reveled in the joy of Gentiles being “fellow heirs,” “fellow citizens”, “fellow members of the household of God” and “fellow partakers of the promise.”⁸ How much more explicit could he have been in emphasizing that Gentiles who believed in Yeshua did not replace Israel, but joined her as the chosen people of God?
However, not only does the old-line dispensational⁹ hermeneutic wilt under the light of thorough exegesis, it also adds to the notion that one must pick and choose from the Scriptures. The dispensationalist must approach Scripture with the question of what is applicable in the current dispensation and what is not; they also must separate the Scriptures according to what applies to Israel and what applies to the Church. This can get messy.
Another debilitating hermeneutic is that of allegorizing or ‘spiritualizing’ the Scriptures. In this method of reading the text, the Scriptures’ obvious meaning is presumed to be less valuable than a ‘deeper spiritual’ meaning. Since those who hold to this hermeneutic most often believe that the Church has become the ‘New’ Israel, those laws and statutes given for ‘physical’ Israel are reinterpreted ‘spiritually’ for the ‘spiritual’ Israel— that is, the Church. Using allegory to arrive at the meaning of the sacred text is very arbitrary. For example who decides what ‘deeper spiritual meaning’ the text actually possesses? Since there are no clear guidelines for exactly how one arrives at this ‘deeper spiritual meaning,’ the allegorical method gives way to a host of individualistic interpretations.
Moreover, at the foundation of this hermeneutic the erroneous notion that what is physical is less important than what is non-physical. When God created the physical world, “He declared that it was good,” not bad. And the very fact that God intends to resurrect our bodies shows clearly that He finds eternal value in the physical aspect of our existence.

If we contemplate that God has changing standards for His people, we will surely falter in our faith. We must know and believe that our God does not change.

Once again, even though those who use an allegorical method of interpretation may have pure motives, their methodology is flawed and leads to a view of Scripture that is devastating: what the sacred text obviously says is not what it really means.
In the end, when the Scriptures are divided along the lines of ‘what is applicable and what is not,’ they loose their authority. Theologians become the deciding factor in lifestyle and practice rather than the word of God itself. Instead of trembling at the Word God’s people become comfortable with neglecting what God has ‘really’ said.

[Trembling at the Word]

Trembling at the Word
by Tim Hegg

Many in the Body of Messiah today have made the Word of God ‘manageable” by shirking their responsibility to its commands with an assortment of reasons. Let us be serious about what God says. Let us tremble at His Word.

The prophet Isaiah uses and interesting metaphor in his prophecy’s last chapter: “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My Word. “ (Isaiah 66:2)

The opening phrase, “But to this one I will look” brings to mind the Aaronic Benediction given to the priests in order to bless Israel (Numbers 6:22-27). This blessing of the Almighty was couched in terms of God “turning His face” toward His people, or “shining His countenance upon them.” This is summed up in the word “look” in Isaiah’s message: when God “looks” toward a person, He has purposed to bless him.

And what kind of person does God intend to bless? Those who are “humble and contrite of spirit.” This describes more than just a personality type; God’s blessing comes upon the person who “trembles” at – and is faithful to – His Word.

How should we understand the term “tremble”? The only other time in Scripture that we find this same Hebrew word (chared) construed with the preposition “al” (as it is in Isaiah 66:2), is in I Samuel 4: 13 -

When he came, behold, Eli was sitting on his seat by the road eagerly watching, because his heart was “trembling,” for the ark of God. So the man came to tell it in the city, and all the city cried out.

Eli was worried about the Ark of God. He was anxious to see it safely back in the hands of Israel and her priests, because it had been captured by the Philistines. His heart trembled at the bad news.

The word chared in Eli’s story is an example of Isaiah’s use of the same word. When Isaiah writes about one who is “humble and contrite of spirit,” he is describing a person who is fully concerned about God’s Word having its rightful place as the powerful work of the King, which is to be obeyed. Trembling at God’s Word means receiving it as the gracious, powerful instruction of the Almighty that is filled with dignity and authority. The Word of god is not common; it is extra-ordinary. It comes to mankind through the miracle of God’s grace, in which He clothes His eternal truth in the garments of human language. As such, it has an awesome power that makes the believer’s soul tremble. We fear to think what might happen if we were merely to wink at His Word.

From the beginning of mankind’s existence, however, the enemy has sought to dissuade God’s image-bearer from trembling at His Word. The Deceiver planted the seeds of doubt into the mind of Chavah (Eve) with this nagging question, “Indeed, has God said?”(Genesis 3:1) From the start there was a battle for God’s Word. Would it be received as eternal and unchanging? Or would it be marginalized and rationalized in such a way as to make it irrelevant?
This lie of the Enemy has been repeated time and again, though it certainly has worn different masks. From ancient time there were those who simply considered the Scriptures to be the product of men, and therefore without any divine authority. The Sages speak of this when they declared that anyone who denied the divine origin of the Torah had forfeited their place in the world to come¹. Even in our day there are those who relegate the Scriptures to ancient mythology or superstition. We who have accepted the Scriptures as the divinely inspired Word of God will never agree with such liberal perspectives.

Yet the Enemy’s challenge of God’s right to demand our obedience still comes masked in deceitfully subtle garb. Through various theological systems and methods of interpretation, some have fallen prey to the notion that some of the Scriptures are no longer relevant for us. They may believe that the teachings were authoritative in days gone by, but today they have been “fulfilled” in a way that essentially renders much of them inapplicable to believers.

Hi y'all -

I was raised with dispensationalist views, but I have repented of my ways  

I have found that some of the disagreements I have had with my brothers and sisters on this forum arise out of Dispensationalism. I thought I would make a post to take on this issue.

I would like to start with an article that deals with the major false premises of dispensationalism, and then we can debate.

So without further ado --

Hi there BEP -

Gentiles (that's us) are unclean heathen, and it is forbidden to associate with us or be with us.

Are you saying the above is found in the OT somewhere? Could you please reference the scripture?

The reason I challenge you on this is because such a thing is not found in the OT, at least according to my understanding.

Peter says that he was forbidden (by law) not to associate with Gentiles: Acts 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him;" You will find no such prohibition in the Law of Moses. It was Rabbinic Law that prohibited a Jew from associating and particularly eating with a Gentile -- mostly as an issue of Kosher eating and keeping oneself from partaking in idol worship.

The Law of Moses, however, was given not only to Israel, but also to the Gentiles who left Egypt with Israel and sojourned with them:

Ex 12:49 " The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."

Le 18:26 'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, {neither} the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you

Le 24:22 'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.' "

Nu 15:29 'You shall have one law for him who does {anything} unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them.

Nu 15:30 'But the person who does {anything} defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.

Take care,
Chesed

Bibliography
Bivin, David. 1988. Jesus’ Education. Jerusalem Perspective 14,15
Bruce, F.F. 1983. Hard Sayings of Yeshua. IV Press. Downers Grove, Illinois.
Flusser, David. 1979. Do You Prefer New Wine? Immanuel 9: 26-31.
Good, R.S. 1983. Yeshua, Protagonist of the Old, In Luke 5:33-39. Novum Testamentum 25(1): 19-36
Kee, Alistair. 1970. The Old Coat and the New Wine, A Parable of Repentance. Novum Testementum 12(1): 13-21)
Lachs, Samuel Tobias. 1987. A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament. Ktav Publishing House, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey
Lange, John Peter. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.
Lenski, R.C.H. 1961. The Interpretation of Luke’s Gospel. Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, MN.
Mead, A. H. 1988. Old and New Wine. St. Luke 5:39. Expository Times. 99(: 234-235.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Volume 2. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.
Nolland, John. 1989. Word Biblical Commentary Volume 35A. Word Books, Dallas, Texas.
Rice, George E. 1980. Some Further Examples of Anti-Judaic Bias in the Western Text of the Gospel of Luke. Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (2): 149-156
Stern, David H. 1992. Jewish New Testament Commentary. JNT Publications, Inc. Maryland
Stern, Robert H. 1992. The New American Commentary, Volume 24 Luke. Broadman Press, Nashville, TN.
Synge, F. C. The Parable of the Patch. Expository Times 56: 26-27
Young, Brad H. 1995. Jesus the Jewish Theologian. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA.

Footnotes
1. We should not assume that the two groups are mutually exclusive.
2. Also Matt 9:14-17, Mark 2:18-22
3. Bruce, 1983; Lachs 1987; Lange; Lenski 1961; Meyer; Stein, 1992; Synge. The unanimity of this interpretation of Yeshua’s words has been so normative to Christian thinking that the term “Old Wine” is figuratively used to refer to Judaism in Christian writings.
4. Kee (1970) is not alone in his observation of the difficulty with the incompatibility interpretation. He is joined by Nolland (1989), Mead (1988), Stern (1992). Kee also notes that the double parable has nothing to do with fasting. His own explanation, however, is less than satisfying and it necessitates a cut and paste which completely removes the parable from the narrative context the gospels place it in.
5. Or “the old is better.”
6. Mead 1988
7. Flusser, 1979
8. Rice, 1980
9. Flusser however contends that Luke preserves the original form. He is followed by Young (1995).
10. It could certainly be argued that the two sages quoted are Tannaim from a century after the time of Yeshua, but the metaphors and analogies which these Tannaim employed and which constitute the proverbs of Pirkei Avot belonged to a body of oral tradition, much of which predates the day of Yeshua. For example, see the passage from Nedarim 50b quoted at the beginning of the article which uses the same symbolic values for wine and containers.
11. Flusser (1979) cites other related Rabbinical and Talmudic passages in which wine is symbolic for Torah and the interpretation of scripture.
12. (1988, Bivin)

Part 3

Smudged Paper and Old Wine
We might imagine the Pharisees leaving Levi’s banquet and later pondering Yeshua’s words saying, “I don’t know what he meant by that, but it sounded very profound.” — Or perhaps not.

Unlike us, the Pharisees probably knew exactly what Yeshua meant because they were probably already familiar with the symbolism Yeshua employed in his double parable. By comparing Luke 5:36-39 with the well known Pharisaic proverb of Avot 4.20, a whole new interpretation arises which is a natural complement to the context of the passage and is more satisfactory than those previously suggested.


Luke 5:36–39
He told them this parable: “No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old.

And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.

No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”

Pirkei Avot 4:20
Elisha ben Avuyah said: “He who studies as a child, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written upon a fresh [new] sheet of paper. But he who studies as an adult, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written on a smudged [previously used and erased] sheet of paper.

Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah of the city of Babylon said, “He who learns from the young, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks unfermented wine from his vat. But he who learns from the old, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine.

Rabbi (Meir) said: Do not pay attention to the container but pay attention to that which is in it. There is a new container full of old wine, and here is an old container which does not even contain new wine.


Like the larger Gospel context of Luke chapters five and six, the Avot passage is comparing different types of teachers, disciples and teachings. If we allow the similes of Avot 4 to inform the metaphors of Luke 5, we have surprising results. [10] In Avot, the vessels for containing wine are not institutions, religious movements or teachings. The vessels containing the wine are individuals. The wine is the teaching that the individual consumes or contains. [11] Applying this symbolism to Luke, we could parse out 5:36-39 as follows:




New garment = previously uneducated students

Old garment = previously educated students

Patch = teaching

New wineskins = previously uneducated students

Old wineskins = previously educated students

New wine = new teaching

Old wine = previous teaching

Singular Meaning = New teaching requires previously uneducated students in order to be received.

No one takes a lesson meant for a new student and tries to teach it to an old (already educated) student. If he does, he will fail to teach the new student, and the lesson meant for the new student will be rejected by the old student.

No one teaches new Torah-teaching to old (previously educated) students. If he does, the new teaching will be rejected, the student will be lost. No. Instead new Torah-teaching must be taught to new students. And no one after receiving old teaching (previous education) wants the new, for he says, “The old teaching is better.”


The Avot interpretation of the double parable offers several advantages. Unlike the incompatibility theory, the Avot interpretation is not anachronistic. It does not pit Yeshua against Judaism nor does it imagine a conflict between New Covenant Grace and Old Covenant Law. Instead, it pits Yeshua’s choice of disciples against the Pharisee’s choice of disciples. Unlike the incompatibility theory, the Avot interpretation fits the context in which the parable is found, namely the call and selection of Yeshua’s disciples. It addresses the Pharisee’s criticism about fasting and it answers the problems raised by 5:39.

Unsmudged Paper
Luke has gone to some pains to demonstrate the unsavory character of Yeshua’s choice in disciples. They are fishermen, tax collectors and ‘sinners.’ They are feasting and drinking instead of fasting and praying. They are bungling Sabbath observance to feed their stomachs. They are not the pious types. They are not the types to follow in the tradition of the disciples of Hillel and Shammai. They have not been educated with the sages. In this regard, they are like a clean slate, a fresh, unsmudged piece of paper for Yeshua to write on.

This is not to suggest that the disciples had no education. A primary education in Yeshua’s day involved an extensive memorization of Scripture and knowledge of Torah. Educational standards in the Galilee may have even surpassed those of Judah, so even fishermen and tax collectors had received training in the Scriptures. However, only the very gifted went on to study beyond the age of 12 or 13 and only the truly exceptional (and perhaps wealthy) went on to become disciples of the sages. [12]

The situation with the disciples reminds me of a celebrated metal welder who was known in northeast Minnesota for his excellent work. He often remarked that he would rather teach welding to a drunk he found in a bar who had never held a welding torch in his hand than hire a welder with previous training and experience. A man who had never been taught to weld was still teachable, but a man who already knew how to weld was not. This was the case with Yeshua’s choice of disciples. The Pharisees, up to this point in the Gospel narrative, were not yet opponents of Yeshua but were probably still contemplating whether or not to become his disciples. They could not understand Yeshua’s choice of disciples and must have been baffled that he had not yet approached them with the position. At Levi’s banquet, they criticized the uncouth character and behavior of Yeshua’s choice in disciples. Yeshua responded with the double parable, which in essence explained to the Pharisees why they were not qualified for the job of disciple and why the low-life, which he chose to associate with, were. The double parable is not a polemic against Judaism; it is simply an explanation of his choice of disciples. In essence, Yeshua was saying to the Pharisees, “Look, You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”

We can now understand how the double parable answers to the question about fasting. They said, “Yochanon’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees (which is to say, so do we), but yours go on eating and drinking.” Yeshua’s statements about the bridegroom answered directly to the issue of fasting, but the double parable answered to the broader criticism being raised. That criticism was that Yeshua’s disciples were not at all like the disciples of Yochanon or the Pharisees.

The Old is Better
Finally, the Avot interpretation solves the problems raised by 5:39, “And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good.’” If the parable is comparing Yeshua’s Torah teaching (New Wine) with the Pharisee’s Torah teaching (Old Wine) the meaning becomes perfectly clear. Disciples who have already studied Torah under the Pharisaic schools (or under the tutelage of Yochanon) and have learned to interpret according to those traditions and models are unlikely to be interested in a new approach. Those students will be apt to disregard contradictory teaching because they have already formed opinions and made judgments. They will regard the education they have already received as superior. Yeshua has chosen fishermen and tax collectors precisely because of their lack of formal education.

Luke returns to the disciple’s lack of formal education in Acts chapter 4 when the Sanhedrin questions Peter and John. In Acts 4:13 Luke writes, “Now as [the Sanhedrin] observed the confidence of Peter and Yochanon and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Yeshua.” On that day, when two, poorly-educated fishermen stood before the Sanhedrin, they demonstrated the full caliber of their education under Yeshua and vindicated his choice of disciples. New garments, new wineskins and new students.

Part 2

Serious Problems
There are serious problems with the incompatibility interpretation. For example, it is anachronistic. Critical scholarship now acknowledges that Yeshua was not trying to start a new religion nor was his intention to dismantle Judaism. At the time that Yeshua gave the double parable there was no Christianity, no Church, no new religion for Judaism to be incompatible with. At the time the Gospel writers were recording the double parable, the Church Fathers’ model of Yeshua as an antagonist of the Old Covenant and Judaism had not yet even been conceived. What has, in fact, become worn and obsolete is the very notion that the historical Yeshua was opposed to the Torah and Judaism. Regarding this incompatibility interpretation Kee says, “There is no denying that Jesus radically transformed [and] revolutionized Judaism for his followers, but surely we need not labor the point that it was in fact Judaism which he transformed for them . . . To attribute the idea of incompatibility to Jesus, as a way of describing his relationship to Judaism, is bad theology and bad history.” His point is well taken. The incompatibility interpretation stems from a supersessionist theology of a later century. To place it into the mouth of Yeshua is absurd. [4]

Another serious problem with the incompatibility interpretation is the closing line of Luke 5:39, “And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good.’” [5] This troublesome verse is found only in Luke’s version of the double parable, and even then the Western version of the text omits it. It creates a serious problem for the incompatibility interpretation because it seems to reverse the value assigned to the new wine. If the Gospel is represented by the new wine, then the statement and even the entire metaphor is ridiculous in Yeshua’s mouth. It is “as if Yeshua was comparing Judaism to good claret and the Gospel to cheap plonk.” [6] Marcion the Heretic was quick to deem the end of 5:39 as a Jewish interpolation into the Gospels. [7] No surprise then that the Western text completely omits Luke 5:39. The omission belies an anti-Judaic bias in the scribal transmission. By removing the statement that the Old is good (or even “better”), the editor felt that he had removed “any suggestion that the Jews would reject the teachings of Christianity because they were well satisfied with Judaism.” [8] If Rice is correct, then the double parable was being read according to the incompatibility interpretation at a very early stage.

Attempts to Salvage
Recognizing that the incompatibility interpretation is flawed, several scholars have made valiant attempts to reinterpret the double parable in a manner consistent with the rest of the Gospels. R. S. Good (1983) and David Flusser (1979), for example both try to force an explanation of the words “the old is better” by reversing the direction of the entire double parable in Luke. According to Good, Luke intentionally reinterpreted the two parables to mean that the Old is better because it is the Old Israel that Yeshua has come to save. [9] The New Wine, bursting the skins and tearing the garment, should then be read as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The old skins must be preserved: the old garment must be patched because they represent old Israel. This attractive and highly innovative explanation accounts for 5:39 and gets past the anachronistic problems of the traditional interpretations, but it forces itself against statements like 5:38 and does not fit the context. Even Good points out that it is not in concert with Matthew and Mark’s versions.

Stern tries to reconcile the parables by going in several directions. He suggests that Yeshua meant for us to patch up Judaism by pre-shrinking the cloth of Messianic faith to fit the old coat of Judaism. Then he suggests that the new wineskins are actually the old wineskins which have been reconditioned in order to receive the new wine. Hence the New Wineskins should be read as renewed wineskins. While his interpretations are creative, they continue to operate under the premise of incompatibility and stretch the reader beyond the point of believability. In addition, they certainly don’t give answers to the question of Luke 5:39 or to the context in which the parables are given.

Choosing the Twelve
The context in which the double parable occurs is a narrative relating how Yeshua chose his disciples. All of chapter five and the first 16 verses of chapter six string together several stories which deal with the calling and selection of the disciples. Luke 5:1-11 records the story of the first miraculous catch of fish during which Yeshua invites James, John, Peter (and by inference Andrew) to become his disciples. The pericope concludes in 5:11 with the fishermen leaving their boats, their nets and the miraculous catch to follow Yeshua. The narrative then turns aside to relate two short healing stories (5:17-26), but returns to the calling of the disciples with the call of Levi in 5:27 and 28. Like the fishermen, Levi leaves everything and follows Yeshua. Levi holds a banquet for Yeshua and at this banquet the Pharisees level criticisms aimed at Yeshua’s disciples. They asked his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” They asked Yeshua, “Why don’t your disciples fast and pray like Yochanon’s disciples and like our disciples?” Both questions are criticisms of Yeshua’s disciples and his choice of company. Yeshua replies to the question on fasting with the bridegroom statements of 5:34,35 and then tells the double parable.

Following the double parable, Luke six begins with a short pericope which at first seems unrelated to the concerns of choosing disciples. In the story (6:1-5) the Pharisees challenged Yeshua on Sabbath issues, but it is in fact the disciples behavior which the Pharisees criticized, not the behavior of Yeshua. They accused the disciples of breaking the Sabbath by picking the heads of grain and husking them in their hands. Again the criticism is directed toward Yeshua’s choice of disciples. Connected with the Sabbath observance conflict raised in 6:1-5, Luke offers a matching pericope in 6:6-11 that echoes and complements the first but is clearly meant as an aside.

Returning to the matter at hand, that is the call and selection of Yeshua’s disciples, Luke closes the section with the final elimination round in which Yeshua chooses the Twelve (6:12-16). With the choosing of the Twelve, the disciple issue is settled.

The Calling and Selection of His talmidim

(A) Calling of the First Disciples 5:1–11

(Aside to Healing of the Leper) 5:12–16

(Aside to Healing of the Paralytic) 5:17–26

(B) Calling of Levi 5:27–28

(C) Levi’s Banquet / Pharisees’s criticisms of disciples 5:29–39

Yeshua’s Response and Double Parable

(D) Pharisees accuse disciples of Sabbath violation 6:1–5

(Aside to a similar Sabbath story) 6:6–11

(E) Final selection of the Twelve Talmidim 6:12–16

***
(end part 2)

Hi y'all -

I really enjoyed this article. I thought I should share it.

Take care,
Chesed

The Life of Messiah  
Yeshua's New Wine
By D. Thomas Lancaster


The Emperor’s daughter said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah: “What beautiful Torah in an ugly vessel!” He replied, “Learn from the house of your father. In what is the wine stored?” “In jars of clay,” she answered. “But all the common people store their wine in jars of clay! You use them too? You should keep your wine in jars of gold and silver!” She went and had the wine placed in vessels of gold and silver, and it turned sour. “Thus,” said he to her, “It is the same with Torah!” She asked, “But are there not handsome people who are learned?” He replied, “If they were ugly they would be even more learned!” (Talmud Bavli Nedarim 50b)
Imagine, if you will, a banquet at the house of Levi the tax collector. There is singing and drinking and eating and merriment, and in the midst of it reclines the Master and his disciples. On the periphery of the scene are the Pharisees and several disciples of Yochanon the Immerser.[1] They have been following Yeshua, learning from him and scrutinizing him. They would not deign to eat with the sinners and tax collectors that constitute Yeshua’s friends and followers, but they are intrigued enough to stay close and observe. As the meal progresses, the Pharisees began to ask Yeshua’s disciples some questions such as, “How often do you fast?” The disciples are unable to answer with their mouths full, so they shrug and look at Yeshua.

When these same critics turn to Yeshua, informing him that his disciples don’t fast like the disciples of Yochanon and the disciples of the Pharisees, Yeshua disarms them with the double parable of the Old Coat and the New Wine.

No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ (Luke 5:36-39)
It seems that the Master’s profound observations concerning old wineskins, torn coats and new patches leave them speechless. They don’t ask him any more questions, but perhaps that was only because, like the rest of us, they have no idea what Yeshua was talking about.

Incompatibility
Expositors have been scratching chins and nodding heads for a long time over the double parable of Luke 5:33-39. [2] The meaning of the parable is seemingly obvious. The new garment is the Gospel/Grace/Kingdom/Church and the old garment is the Old Covenant/Law/Judaism. No one tears a new garment to patch an old one. Grace and law do not mix. Similarly, the new wine is the Gospel/Grace/Kingdom/Church and the old wineskin is the Old Covenant/Law/Judaism. Just as the new wine would burst the old skins and be spilled, so too the New Covenant Gospel of the Church Kingdom would be wasted if it was poured into the Old Covenant, Mosaic, legalistic religion of Judaism.

In almost unanimous consent interpreters and commentators have agreed that the old wine, old wineskins and the old coat are all symbols of Judaism and Law whereas the new wine and the new coat are symbols of Christianity and Grace.[3] As Kee aptly observes (1970), this “traditional interpretation of the double parable can be summed up in one word: incompatibility. It is supposed to teach that the Old and the New are incompatible, that Judaism is incompatible with Christianity.” The old is worn and obsolete. The Church must be a new and separate movement, not a patch attempting to prolong the institutions of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant has erased and replaced the Old. This meaning of the double parable seems obvious—Or perhaps not.

***
(end part 1)

Hi Pixie -

Here are a few sites that I visit to keep up to date on events in Israel. I don't trust our biased media to cover events in Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/

http://www.arutzsheva.com/

And this one is not always reliable, but an interesting one to check: http://www.debka.com/

Take care,
Chesed

And another thing....

300,000 Iraqi civilians slaughtered at the hand of Saddam --
this number does not include the countless women who were snatched off the street and brutally raped, the men whose ears were cut off, or those that had their hands cut off and God only knows of the other atrocities...

[eternal covenant]

BigD -

According to Paul the Law was not an intrinsic part of God's eternal program, but was added for a given period of time, until Christ came and the ushering in of faith .

If this is true, then why does God give the Law as an eternal covenant? If it was only meant to be given for a time, until the Messiah came, why don't the OT scriptures reflect that? Did God change His mind?

God's ultimate purpose in giving the Law was to make men righteous.

Wrong. Do a word search on righteous among the books of the Law and you will find no such verse to back this up.

Here's some of the reasons why I believe God gave the Law to His people:

De 12:28 "Be careful to listen to all these words which I command you, so that it may be well with you and your sons after you forever, for you will be doing what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God.

Ex. 19:5-7 "Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'

The Law was never meant to be a litmus test for salvation, but a means by which God could separate for Himself a People who belong to Him, a nation of Priests to the world.

Paul also knew the Law was never meant as a means of salvation. There has always been only one way of salvation: by grace through faith.

Take care,
Beth

Pastor Roger -

Thank you so much for your service to our country. You're a true hero in my book!

Kerry on the other hand is not. Did you hear about his comment that he thinks a soldier who dies under the US flag is not honorable, but one who dies under the UN flag is honorable?! May God prevent such a man from becoming president!

Take care,
Chesed

Florida_Catholic -

Why do you only have compassion toward Iraqi civilians who are killed as a result of collateral damage by US and allied troops, but you have no compassion for the (at least) 300,000 Iraqi civilians murdered by their evil dictator, Saddam Hussein? Isn't the world better off, especially Iraq, now that he is gone?

[to which the Law and the Prophets testify]

Hi there Ollie -

In answer to my previous post, you quoted Luke 16:16. I believe that you are misunderstanding this verse. It is wrong to interpret this verse as saying the Law and the Prophets are abolished because of John the immerser. Consider the very following verse: Lu 16:17 "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to become void." So verse 16 certainly doesn't mean that the Law and the Prophets were done with, as we can see by the following verse.

Then you continued by quoting:

Romans 3:20.  "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Yes, no one is justified by any law keeping, only by the blood of Jesus. I think we agree there.

21.  But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

So what is this righteousness of God without the works of the Law to which the Law and the Prophets testify? If you are trying to say that this verse means that the Law is done away with, then how is this righteousness witnessed by the Law and the Prophets? Where in the Law and the Prophets does it say that the commandments therein were only for a time, until the Messiah came and "finished" them? All throughout the Law and the Prophets it talks about the commandments being an Eternal Covenant (you can do a word search on the word "eternal" in the OT, I will spare you from having to read such a long post   )

And obviously, what Paul is saying here in Romans 3 is not at odds with the Law because he later says: "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (verse 3:31).

I think what Paul is dealing with here and also in Galatians is the issue of circumcising Gentile believers in Messiah, which is the same as becoming a Jew. We know that some were trying to persuade the Gentiles to become Jews by being ritually circumcised, joining "the circumcision group" (see Ro. 15:8, Gal. 2:12, Eph. 2:11) and to obey all the Law (Acts 15, all the Law included Rabbinic Law as well.) Paul is establishing the fact that Gentiles are saved by faith in Messiah, not by becoming ritually circumcised (Jewish). There is nothing in all the Law and Prophets that calls for Gentiles to become Jews in order to be acceptable to God. God says the same Law He gave to Israel also applies to the Gentiles who identify with Israel (Ex 12:49).

Take care -
Chesed