Paul teaches at length on the subject of speaking in unknown tongues. He makes it clear that if a person can speak in the tongues of men or angels, but doesn’t love, that person is nothing but noise (1 Corinthians 13:1).

To this day, the teaching of unknown tongues and tongues of angels is brought up often among Christians. The meaning of this has been debated for centuries, and especially since the rise of the charismatic movement of the church.

Unknown tongues are easily understood to be foreign languages or languages foreign to the teachers and readers of God’s Word. 

The important question, at least for me, is: What is the language of angels?

Many will say that it is a language that cannot be interpreted by people. This is the understanding which brings entire congregations to pray with babbling noises that another may claim to understand and in turn give an interpretation.

I am not going to debate or debunk any of these beliefs. I will merely give an explanation of the language of angels according to the ancient, Jewish sages, such as Rabbi Paul, who taught on this subject using their Mishnaic commentaries and Jewish education.

The subject of angels with respect to the ancient Jewish understanding is quite vast. Humans and angels were often compared in order to point out the differences between the two creations. Their similarities were also pointed out. One similarity that was taught by the Jewish sages was that “they both converse in the Holy Tongue” (Chag. 16a).

In Paul’s day, there were many Hellenistic Jews who had continued to use the language which they had obtained during their time of exile in Babylon. The language that these Jews used was Aramaic, unlike the Hebraic Jews who, after the Maccabean Revolt, had chosen to re-adopt their ancient language of Hebrew. The language of Hebrew was to be used in all Torah teachings and it was called the language of prayer for the Jews of the first century (Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, 49).

The rabbis, like Paul, also believed and taught that the angels were ignorant of Aramaic, therefore, no petition to God should be made in this language since it was the angels’ duty to carry the prayers of God’s people to God’s Throne (Sot. 33a).

The Holy Language, Heavenly Language, or Language of Angels was considered to be none other than Hebrew. “The Hebrew services included prominent expressions of praise to God which were believed to be carried by the angels and placed as a crown upon the Head of the Holy One…” (Cohen, 49).

Many blessings,
Johnny

© 2007 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Before we begin, please allow me to give my sincere gratitude to Abraham Cohen and his wonderful book, Everman’s Talmud, which is the major source of the following article.

There are many Christian denominations that place restrictions on what God has provided. Additional restrictions are seen as more godly, and some forms of asceticism are generally respected as honorable to God.

I have heard preachers teach that we should not only devote ten percent of our assets to the work of God; we should devote one hundred percent. Maybe those preachers missed reading Jesus’ warning to those who did just that in Matthew 15:3-9. Jesus clearly taught that a person can attempt to honor God by his or her excessive self-denial, and actually be practicing disobedience to God.

For the Jews of Jesus’ day, “Total abstinence was not considered a virtue” (Cohen, 232).

Though the sages gave clear warnings against excess, completely neglecting one’s self from the pleasures provided by God for the sake of holiness was actually counterproductive to that goal. Voluntary poverty, excessive fasting, and abstaining from wine were considered contrary to the virtue assumed by such behavior. The sages taught, “Where there is no meal, there is no Torah” (Aboth III. 21) and “Worse is poverty in a man’s house than fifty plagues” (B.B. II6a). The rabbis believed so much that God’s children were to enjoy the pleasures of His provisions that they would say, “In the Hereafter a man will have to give judgment and reckoning for all that his eye saw but he did not eat” (p. Kid. 66d).

The Talmud teaches, “At the head of all medicines am I wine; where wine is lacking drugs are necessary” (B.B. 58b). This brings to mind Rabbi Shaul’s (Paul’s) advice to Timothy for taking care of his stomach problems by drinking wine (1 Timothy 5:23). There were even atonements made for Nazarites because of their “sin” of abstaining from wine. Although abstaining from wine was a command of God to the Nazarite (Numbers 6:3), it was still considered sinful, just as killing is a sin though the Israelites were ordered to kill those living in the Promised Land when they crossed the Jordan River (Deut. 7:1-2).

It is interesting that our attempts at holiness would be considered unholy by the rabbis of Jesus’ day. In fact, our abstinence may even require ritual cleansing.

It may be wise to consider the wisdom of God’s ancient Bible teachers who said, “One who imposes vows of abstinence upon himself is as though he puts an iron collar around his neck; he is like one who builds a prohibited altar; he is like one who takes a sword and plunges it into his heart. Sufficient for you is what the Torah forbids, and do not seek to add further restrictions” (p. Ned. 41b).

Forever learning,

Johnny

© 2007 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

When I was a child, I never wanted to get old. Now that I’m close to forty, I would never want to be a child. The definition of life must include irony. 

As a student of God and His creation, I have read many books on the subject of people. We are a strange creation to say the least. Each of us is made up of so much more than flesh and bones. Even our temperaments and personalities are made up of many levels. There is no person who is exactly like another person. And don’t give me the twin argument; I am a twin. My brother and I are a lot alike, and we are a lot unlike. 

This past year I have had the privilege of being tutored in the area of leadership by an amazing couple of coaches. They have taught me so much more than I ever knew about the way people communicate and process information. Some of us attach everything to everything else. These are the ones who have a hard time letting go of past hurts and disappointments. Others of us completely detach everything from everything else. These are the ones who don’t understand why others can’t just “let it go and get on with life.” 

Isn’t it true that life can be very cruel? Not all of us experience the same form or measure of cruelty as others, but all of us know the feeling of being hurt. As believers, we are instructed to forgive and love others as we would have them love us. What if that was actually easy? What if we could all detach ourselves from the pain of the past? What if every painful experience was like a bruise; it showed up, hurt for a while, and finally went away without a trace of its existence ever to be seen again? 

The ancient sages taught that hurting others could be likened to a sword or an arrow. Some things that we say and do are like swords which are thrust into another, and then are pulled back out. Other hurtful actions and words are like arrows; once they are in, they are in for good; the damage is permanent and can never be taken back. The person whom we have hurt may live, but they will never live without the hurt we have given them. 

We have all experienced the swords of others. We have all experienced the pain and hurt from those we love that we have forgiven and forgotten. Many of us, if not all of us, have also experienced permanent damage that we live with every day. We never forget, but like one writer so wisely said, “We have figured out a way to build a bridge over the pain so that we can cope. It’s always there, but we don’t have to constantly walk in it” (my paraphrase). 

When I was about ten-years-old, I kept tattling on one of my brother’s. My dad got so tired of us not getting along that he gave me his belt and told me to spank my brother. It took me years to get over the guilt of that experience.

Sometimes it’s not the pain we receive but the pain we deliver that is the most difficult to forget.  

Grace and peace,
Johnny

© 2007 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5, NIV)

My doctor asked me, “Who are the meek?” My guess is that when someone asks this, they want to know who is going to get the planet and all of its stuff.

Let’s dig.

There are a couple of interesting points that are often overlooked or unknown by Christian readers and teachers of this verse. The Replacement theologian will quickly dismiss the fact that Jesus is speaking to Jews, while the empathetic pastor will quickly share that all of those who allow themselves to be abused without retaliating will be greatly rewarded in the afterlife to make up for their lack in this life.

Matthew Henry teaches in his commentary that “they shall inherit the land of Canaan, a type of heaven.” Hurray for Mr. Henry. However, Mr. Henry is only partly right, at least according to David Stern the writer of the Jewish New Testament Commentary.

As Stern points out, Jesus is quoting Psalm 37:11 to remind them of God’s promise that the meek of Israel will receive their “already promised” inheritance of the Promised Land. “Earth” is used in many English translations of this passage because the Greek word ge can mean “land” and “earth.” But the Hebrew word eretz, which Jesus is quoting, means “land” and is not used to mean “earth” but the small portion of the earth that is the Promised Land.

God has not taken back his promise to give Israel the Promised Land, nor has he replaced Israel with Christians. His people, Israel, and specifically the meek, will inherit the Promised “eretz.” As David Stern says, “…it is important for Jews and Christians alike to understand that the New Testament does not alter any of God’s promises to the Jewish people; God’s literal promises are not somehow spiritualized out of existence ‘in Christ.’”  

To truly understand what Jesus is saying, we must look at the 37th Psalm. As we read this Pslam we see that the writer, David, is contrasting two kinds of people, the wicked and the righteous. The meek are those of Israel who are not evil doers but are the obedient, blameless, righteous, generous people of God. “Those the Lord blesses will inherit the land, but those he curses will be cut off.” (Psalm 37:22).

Often the Matthew 5:5 passage is taught with the emphasis being that those who are passive and accepting of abuse will be given the world, however, as we sit at Jesus’ Jewish, Hebrew-speaking side and hear him quote from Psalm 37 this reminder of God’s promise to the obedient of Israel, we are richly enlightened to the true meaning of the passage.

Blessings,

Johnny

© 2007 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

There is now a discussion forum at Flock’s Diner.

Click on “sign up here” under “Discussion Forum” and apply for an account. Then you can pose your great topics and ask fantastic questions that are open for others to add insights.

Thanks.

Johnny

I have been asked to repost some of my articles from the past, as there are many new readers and viewers who would benefit from the teachings. In addition to that request the following subject was brought up only yesterday, therefore, I believe the following is a great article to revisit.

Lately, I have been posting some articles that help us to get inside the world of Jesus. There are good reasons why I am doing this. Among those reasons is the specific purpose of being able to better “fulfill” (interpret) the Word of God. Without that ability, we will suffer from the kind of lack of understanding that “abolishes” (misinterprets) the Word of God from pulpits all over the evangelical world.

The church today includes many different roles that are filled by individuals with titles such as deacon, pastor, overseer, and elder. All of these titles have their roots in the synagogue. I want to focus on one specific position and title as we discuss the importance of properly “fulfilling” the Word of God from the pulpit.

In the synagogue, there was a position known as a chazen. A chazen would pray, preach behind a wooden pulpit, and provide supervision for the reading of the Torah. It is important to note that the chazen did not actually read the Torah; he merely stood next to the one who did. His job was to correct, oversee, and ensure that the Scriptures were properly “fulfilled.” Another name for the chazen was “overseer.” If someone were to “abolish” the Torah, which means to “misinterpret” it, then the overseer would step up to help him “fulfill” the Torah, which means to “correctly interpret” it.

The following article was published in the August 23, 2006 edition of the “The Southern Spirit, page 7, and its content reveals an obvious example of how one can easily “abolish” the Word of God:

“Most of the evangelical churches in a certain city sponsored a “Day of Prayer,” inviting all who would to assemble at a certain auditorium to pray “all during the day.” A number of pastors were selected to give short messages on prayer at the beginning of each hour.One pastor surprised the attendees by saying, “All of the praying we do here today is second-class.” Perhaps “startled” would be a better word than “surprised.” He let the thought intrigue them for several seconds, and then he read this text:But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:6, KJV)

He then went on to say that however sincere and full of faith our public prayers are, and even if they ‘get results,’ they are at best only second-class prayers. The praying that Jesus commands is private prayer, secret prayer.

Someone openly objected that Jesus must have meant ‘individual prayer’ when He said that, not the ‘corporate prayer’ of a congregation. But the speaker countered by returning to the context of the text cited.”His disciples came unto Him . . . and He taught them, saying, …” (Matthew 5:1, KJV)

The pastor closed his meditation by challenging those present to pray as sincerely as possible that day together, and to take the burden of prayer home to ‘finish the job in first-class praying - in secret.’

Oswald Chambers explains in a number of his devotional teachings why secret intercession is the best. I have no one to impress if I am in secret as no one will know that I am praying. I can be my most honest with God. I have no reason to ‘put on airs’ of pretended piety or humility. And He already knows the whole truth anyway.’

Comrades, I too want to urge us all to pray well in our public services. But the greater lesson is that the most effective (first-class) prayer is when only the one praying and the One being prayed to know about it.”

Please allow me to “fulfill” the Word by drawing from the historical context of the first century Jewish world of Jesus, and by explaining the Hebrew word translated as “prayer closet.”

The article concerning the “prayer closet” is the result of an obvious lack of knowledge pertaining to first century Jewish garb. A “prayer closet” is a tah-lit, which is Hebrew for “tent-little,” translated in English, “Little Tent.” The tah-lit is often referred to in English as a “prayer shawl” or “prayer closet.” The Jews wore the “prayer closet” over the ha-luk, which is what we often see Jesus wearing in Westernized movies. The ha-luk is actually first century Jewish “underwear.”

The “prayer closet” is worn over the shoulders and during prayer it is pulled toward the face by both hands to signify “closing the door of your closet.” This was done because the hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of Jews who would gather at the Tent of Meeting could not all fit inside. So, they would wear their own “little tent” and pray as a way of joining their brothers and sisters who were in the Tent of Meeting. We exemplify this ancient way of praying by closing our eyes and bowing our heads, while folding our hands near our face. This is probably an evolutionary outcome of pulling the “prayer closet” to cover the face during prayer.

“Going into your prayer closet” was not a message from Jesus telling the disciples to “go home and pray,” but a message to pray alone “and” together, pulling up your “prayer closet” as not to appear boastful in your prayers. Those who went “into their prayer closets” were praying along side everyone else at the Tent of Meeting, whether inside the tent or outside the tent by going into their little tents. Knowing what a prayer closet is can also give us some idea of the likelihood that Paul may very well have been a “little tent” or “prayer closet” maker.”

The kind of Scriptural misinterpretation that is exemplified by the article quoted previously makes it very important for us to ask questions.

Some things are mysteries; some are misinterpretations.

Every pulpit should have a chazen standing close by to make sure the Word is “fulfilled.”

Forever learning,
Johnny

© 2007 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved