There are some amazing new discoveries concerning the gospels, which have been developed over the last half-century. These discoveries are changing the current understandings of some of our sacred texts.

For instance, as David Bivin points out in his book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, the belief that Jesus taught in Aramaic has been seriously challenged, which helps us to understand some of the long misunderstood Hebraic idioms within the gospels. Going back in time to retrieve the meaning of many of these idioms, such as “a good eye,” which means “to be generous,” as apposed to *”an evil eye,” meaning “stingy,” will change the way we teach.

As scholars and archeologists dig deeper and deeper into the cultural setting of first century Jerusalem, there will be more discovers that will have a great influence on our current philosophies to literally transform our current theology from a Greek-based message to a more Hebraic style of reflection and interpretation.

For example, understanding that a *”prayer closet” is actually a tah-lit, which is a “small tent” or “prayer shawl,” which was laid over the shoulders, and then pulled up to cover the face (closing the door), rather than an actual room, makes an impact on the message. No longer will we tell people that they should “go home” and pray in private, knowing that first century Jews carried their “closet” with them everywhere they went. This also gives us insight concerning “tent makers” to mean that they were very likely “prayer shawl makers.”

I believe that going back into the history of first century Palestine will help the church to develop a clearer message and erase centuries of misunderstandings, such as when Jesus said to a “would-be” disciple who wanted to bury his father first, *”Let the dead bury the dead.” This statement is in reference to the “second-burial” system of that time, when the Hellenized Jews were influenced by Gnosticism. These Jews would bury the loved one and one year later dig up the body and place the bones in an ossuary. They believed that the one year between burials was a time of redemption when the “sinful” flesh was removed, thereby doing away with the sin so that the body could now be buried sinless with its ancestors.

Jesus words to this “would-be” disciple were actually to say, “Hog-wash! Your father has been dead for a year. Let’s go!”

These historical finds will have great impacts on the teachings of the church.

Though it is not popular or comfortable to approach the discrepancies of our theological frameworks, we must do so for the sake of truth. I believe that the impact made by delving into the historical facts of first century Palestine will give us a more “believable” message for the masses. As long as we rely on intellect (Western mindset), rather than the practical, useful, wisdom of the Eastern mind, we will continue to perpetuate a “spiritual only” gospel.

The Trinity is a very interesting issue for the church and one that we have a very difficult time articulating, without reverting to the “some things aren’t meant for us to understand” explanation. It is also interesting that only Matthew and Luke mention it. Paul is silent on the subject, as are the rest of the New Covenant writers, and the Old Testament never mentions it, unless the LXX (Greek Version of the Old Testament) is used when speaking of “the virgin will conseive and bear a son,” instead of the original Hebrew version which says, “a young woman will be with child (Isaiah 7:14).”

I have noticed, as I’m sure many have, that our beliefs are deemed more important than our actions. In other words, if I stay home and do nothing to imitate Christ, but believe in the fundamental doctrines of the church, I am safe to call myself a “child of God.” But, if I feed the hungry, clothe the naked, et cetera, yet believe that YHWH is God, Jesus is His “favored and chosen” son (among all of His children) and Messiah, and that the Holy Spirit is Yahweh’s power and sovereignty in the world, rather than believing that God is one and three, then I am a “child of Satan.”

It is possible, as some scholars have argued, that the influence of Greek thought on the Scriptures and our theology has allowed for redactors of the texts to place anti-Semitisms and angelology throughout. As more and more research is done, and as more and more study of first century Jewish culture is calculated, we are learning that the influence of Greek thought has done more to damage the message of God, than it has to preserve a people of God.

For me (I don’t push this on others), I have chosen to use less and less of the Westernized commentaries and stick with texts that are more Hebraic for the very reason that there are far too many misunderstood texts when Hebraic idioms, parables, et cetera are interpreted in the Greek or even English contexts. “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it” is incredibly silly, considering the completely different worldview of a very Jewish Jesus who spoke to a very Jewish people in a very Jewish time. To ignore the difference between Western thought and Eastern thought is to do harm to the message that Jesus taught.

I have great respect for all of those who worked hard to understand the Words of the Scriptures without the last half-century of discoveries, but should we allow the respect for 1700 years of hard work to outweigh the discoveries of of the last 50?

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Growing up in the 70’s was interesting. Marijuana, whiskey, and beer were common around my house. And my favorite record was “Highway to Hell” by AC/DC. I would play that album over and over, pretending to be Angus Young rocking out on the solos.

The Church hated that song, and asked people to break the record, if he or she owned it. The assumption was that the writer and the band were glorifying the desire to go to hell. But that wasn’t actually the meaning of the song.

The words of the song are the expression of the ironic life of a rock star — leaving family, eating junk food, living in a bus with a bunch of smelly guys. And remember, in the 70’s there were no cell phones, video game systems, or iPods. “Highway to Hell” was the verbal expression of what it meant to leave loved ones and comforts for the pursuit of the excitement of the Rock Star life.

Although we may easily refer to particular sins as placing us on a literal highway to hell, there is one sin that is so sinister, so private, and so unrecognized by the perpetrator that many of us are on the highway to hell and don’t even know it. And, like the meaning of the song, most of us commit the sin, because it gives us a feeling of acceptance from our peers.

Jesus speaks of that sin in Luke 16:19-31.

The rich man in this story has everything he wants. He feasts every day, when most Jews of his time only feast at the 7 feasts of Israel. Lazarus would have been satisfied to eat what fell from the table, and be treated like one of the dogs that were licking his wounds.

In a culture where sharing and welcoming aliens and strangers into your home was common and instructed by God, the rich man built a fence to keep Lazarus and everyone else from getting close to him. The rich man went to great measures to separate himself from the world around him.

Both men died eventually; the rich man went to Hades, and Lazarus is at Abraham’s side.

Hades is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Sh’ol. It is the only word used in the Old Testament that is translated into the English word “hell.” And it means grave, pit, dead, and sleep.

Abraham’s side is an ancient Hebrew figure of speech that represented a great feast with all of God’s people.

In life, the rich man saw Lazarus as beneath him, and at the most, he saw Lazarus as a servant or a slave. This is important to remember when we look at the story that Jesus tells.

In this story, Jesus is not giving us a practical picture of what heaven and hell look like. Instead there is a much more important message; it is a message of how to stay away from the Highway to Hell.

In life, the rich man built a fence to separate himself from others. In death, the rich man was separated from all of God’s people by a large chasm, one that was impossible to cross. That which he wanted in life, he received in death—eternal separation. But there is another thing that is very important to understand. Notice that the rich man tells Abraham to have Lazarus give him a drop of water and then the rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his family. Both of those requests were the demands of a master upon his servant. Even in death, the rich man saw Lazarus as his servant who would cool his tongue and fetch his family.

Jesus’ message about thinking of others as less than yourself is clear—“Don’t do it!” It is a dangerous sin that puts you on the Highway to Hell. When your racist views and prejudices are supported by others, they thrive and give birth to hate. Jesus tells us that no one is more important than another, and no one, because of skin tone, financial standing, or place of birth is to be unwelcome to those who call themselves followers of Jesus.

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

I agree that the idea of the afterlife is a wonderful encouragement, especially during the difficult times of life, and most definitely when we come to the end of life.

As most of us are aware, Paul was very effective at Westernizing the Gospel, and the Pharisees (like Paul) were believers in the afterlife. Jesus’ teaching was always very Eastern and Jewish. In fact, when he was approached by Gentiles for healing someone they loved, he did not do it right away, but only after they insisted (displayed chutzpah, which is translated, faith). Jesus, as Dr. David Bivin, Dr. Brad Young, Dr. Ron Moseley, and others do a fine job of proving, was most closely aligned with the views of the Pharisees, and also taught about a literal afterlife.

Even so, “eternal life” was heard in Jesus and Paul’s day as “living life like the Eternal (God)” or to live in holiness, doing the will of God as directed by God’s Word. So, although we refer to eternal life as the act of living forever, we miss something, when we don’t understand that “eternal” was a direct reference to God. In other words, eternal life could also be translated “god-like life” or living as God would have one live.

Of course, we do receive eternal life, but as most Christians believe, only when we live a “god-like life.”

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

“Eternal Life” is one Hebrew idiom that has been severely shredded by the Western theological knife. The very reason a Jew would accept and imitate the yoke or scriptural interpretation of a particular rabbi was because he believed that by doing so he would be able to “inherit eternal life.”

Inheriting eternal life is a Hebrew idiom for “living life in the will of God.” This meant that those who followed Jesus believed that if they obeyed his teachings and imitated his ways of living out God’s will, they would gain the ability to “live their lives in the will of God” (inherit eternal life) because they believed that Jesus’ interpretations of the commands of God in the Torah were the perfect interpretations.

The eschatological reward and punishment system was not as important to Jewish people as it is to us Westerners today. In other words, first century Jews were not as concerned with the “afterlife” nearly as much as they were concerned with the “active” life of being a child of God who lived God’s will correctly in the world.

It is not easy for those of us who grew up in the Western world where everything either ends with reward or punishment/ payoff or pay-up to imagine doing something because we should do it and it pleases God. I would even suggest that if it was somehow proven that there was not an afterlife reward for Christians that many who claim to be Christians would choose another religion.

I would challenge all Christians to imaging for just one day doing God’s will without even considering a reward in the afterlife. Actually, pretend for one day that you are either going to live according to God’s will or not and either way there is no heaven or hell in the end. This is the attitude of the first century Jewish world with regard to obedience to the will and ways of God.

We use the reward and punishment system because it works for most situations to which we are required to get people to do what we want. But what if people did their jobs simply because they were able to do them and the jobs needed to be done? What if there was no pay or loss of pay whether I did my job or not? Would I still do my job or be a life-long couch potato? And how would this impact those in supervisory positions? Would they be more likely to express words of appreciation and encouragement like God or would they use tactics of threats and fear like most religions?

God’s word was always a sweet tasting gift to first century Jews, which allowed them the privilege of obeying God simply because it pleased Him, not because they were mortally afraid of losing their jobs or lives. God’s word was written to encourage His people to follow His will, not to scare them into obedience.

Paul tells us that we are to do everything we do as if we are doing it for God (Col. 3:23). God doesn’t say do everything we do as if we will be paid for it. We do God’s will for the sole purpose of bringing His Kingdom into the world wherever we are present as His children.

Eternal life is the opportunity to please God by doing His will in the world, not the opportunity to live forever, though that may very well be part of the package. But even if our death brought nothing but the end of life, we should do the will of God and do it gladly.

In His dust,

Johnny

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

In Luke 19:9-10, Jesus says something that we cannot understand unless we have at least a minimal knowledge of Hebrew and the seven exegetical teaching techniques used by first-century Jewish rabbis.

Not only would Jesus have used a play on words at times, but he would also have used the technique known today as remez. A remez is a clue or a hint at a passage of scripture without actually reciting the passage.

As Westerners, we want people to just come out and say what they mean. We even have a phrase that we use—“Say what you mean and mean what you say.” We also say, “Don’t beat around the bush.” But rabbis would always beat around the bush. And if you don’t have a deep and thorough knowledge of the text (God’s Word) you will miss the message entirely.

First, Jesus uses a word play. Jesus says to Zacchaeus, “Today salvation has come to this house…” In Hebrew the word for salvation is yeshu’ ah (God’s salvation). Jesus is playing on the words “God’s salvation” when he says in Hebrew, “Today yeshu’ ah [which sounds like Jesus’ Hebrew name, Yeshua] is coming to your house.” Then he says, “For the son of man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” “Son of Man” is a Hebrew way of saying, “this man” or “I.”

When all the Jews in the crowd and Zacchaeus heard Jesus say that he has come to seek and save the lost, they heard the remez that Jesus used. And what they heard was the 34th chapter of Ezekiel which records the words of God saying, “Because my shepherds have scattered my sheep and have abused them and put them in harms way, I WILL COME AND BE THE SHEPHERD, AND I WILL SEEK AND SAVE MY LOST SHEEP” (My paraphrase).

What this means is that when they heard Jesus say, “I came to seek and to save what was lost,” they heard Jesus say, “’I am God!’ And I have come just as I promised through my prophet, Ezekiel, to bring my sheep out of the trees and the fields and to rescue them from the wild animals and the dangers of the world.”

Often we hear commentators and others say that Jesus never claimed to be God. That seems to be true until we understand the technique of remez that Jesus often used. Zacchaeus and the other Jews on that day heard Jesus say it loud and clear.

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved