Concerning faith and right action: what God has made one, let no man separate. Yaakov 2:1-26 (Author’s convergent translation from Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew)
1 My brothers and sisters, fellow Jews [see 1:1], do not in partiality, favouritism, respect of persons hold the faith, belief, persuasion, trust in the Lord Yeshua Messiah the glory. 2 For if a person enters your synagogue wearing a gold ring, dressed in white, clean clothes, and a poor person, a beggar in shabby, dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and you gaze at the face of the one who is wearing the white, clean clothes, and say, “You sit here it’s a good spot,” and you say to the poor person, beggar, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 Are you not then making separations, showing partiality among yourselves, and making yourselves judges with thoughts of evil, intentional harm? 5 Listen, hear, comprehend, understand my completely loved brothers and sisters, fellow Jews: did the God not select the poor, beggar of this world to be rich in faith, trust, persuasion, belief and heirs of the kingdom which He announced, promised to those who love Him completely, fully? 6 But you have despised, dishonoured the poor person. Is it not the rich who oppress, exercise harsh control over you and drag you before judgement seats? 7 Do they not blaspheme, speak evil of the good Name by which you have been called? 8 If, however, you are being filled with, the Kingly Torat/specific law/instruction according to the Writings/Scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself, [Lev. 19:18]” you are doing good. 9 But if you show partiality, favouritism, you are committing sin, missing the mark set by God’s holiness and are rebuked, convicted by the Torah/Law as Torah/law breakers. 10 For whoever keeps, guards the entire Torah[H]/Law, yet stumbles, falls, offends in one, has become guilty, subject of all, individually and collectively. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do murder, you have made yourself a breaker of the Torah[H]/Law. 12 So speak, and so do, as those who are to be judged by the Torah[H]/law of freedom, liberty. 13 For judgment devoid of mercy will be shown to one who has shown no mercy; the mercy rejoices against, is glorious over, triumphs over, perpetually boasts against the judgment. 14 What does it profit, my brothers and sisters, fellow Jews if someone says he has faith, trust, belief, persuasion, but he has no works, actions? Can faith, trust, belief, persuasion save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, bread 16 and any one of you says to them, “Go in peace, wholeness, wellbeing, be warmed and be filled,” yet you don’t give them the things they need for their body, what use is that? 17 In the same way, faith, trust, belief, persuasion also, if it has no works, actions, deeds is dead, necrotic being alone, separate, apart. 18 But someone might say, “You have faith and I have works, actions; show me your faith without the works, actions, and I will show you my faith by my works, actions.” 19 You believe that the God is one, well done; the demons also believe, and shudder, tremble, stiffen, are horrified. 20 Now are you willing to know, act on the knowledge, you vain, empty person, that faith, trust, belief, persuasion without works, actions is barren, dead, necrotic? 21 Was our father Avraham not justified by works, actions when he bore, led, offered up his son Yitzchak (Isaac) on the altar? 22 You see that faith, trust, belief, persuasion together with his works, actions, and as a result of the works, actions, faith, trust, belief, persuasion was made perfect, fully filled, made whole, well-constructed. 23 and the Scripture, TaNaKh, Hebrew Bible was fulfilled which says, “And Avraham believed, agreed with God, and it was counted to him as righteousness, charity, practical love, [Gen. 15:6]” and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see, perceive therefore, now truly that a person is justified by works, actions and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was Rachav the prostitute not justified by works, actions also when she allowed entry to the messengers, angels and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works, actions is dead. Yaakov 2:1-26 (Line upon line) 1 My brothers and sisters, fellow Jews[see 1:1] (adelphos mou[G], achay[H]), do not (me[G]) in partiality, favouritism, respect of persons (prosōpolēpsias[G]) hold (echo[G]) the faith, belief, persuasion, trust (ho pistis[G], be’emunat[H]) in the Lord (ho kurios[G], Adoneinu[H]) Yeshua[H] (Iesous[G], Joshua, Jesus: YHVH Saves) Messiah (Christos[G], HaMashiyach[H], Anointed One) the glory (ho doxa[G]). 1 My brothers and sisters, fellow Jews [see 1:1], do not in partiality, favouritism, respect of persons hold the faith, belief, persuasion, trust in the Lord Yeshua[H] Messiah the glory. Put simply, “As Jews and followers of Yeshua, Who is God with us (Imanu El), the glory of God in us, don’t practice favouritism. In particular, show no favouritism when new people, Jews and Gentiles alike, come into your Messianic Jewish Synagogue.” (v.2-3) Yaakov continues to address the Messianic Jewish community of the first century Diaspora. He begins this portion with a reminder that halakhah (the way we walk) in Messiah is lit with Yeshua’s Glory. Therefore we are to walk as people who are aware of our own identity. We are Talmidim (students) of our Glorious Messiah, having been shown favour we are to reject the practice of favouritism. The key to right action, that is, present halakhah, is the very nature of Messiah Himself. The Jewish writer of the Book to the Hebrews gives us a beautiful glimpse into the vast glory of the Mashiyach (Messiah) when he writes: “Ha-Ben (the Son) is the radiance of HaShem’s (YHVH’s) glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful Davar (Word, Essence, Substance).” – Book to the Hebrews 1:3 (Author’s Translation) We further notice that the previous (1:17-18, 23-25) metaphor promoting reflected glory is alluded to by way of inference in the latter part of the first verse of the present chapter “Messiah the glory”. Yaakov is writing to Messiah following Jews living in Jewish communities throughout the known world. At this time (approx. 40 – 50 C.E.) they continued to worship in synagogues which were attended by a believing Jewish majority and by Gentile God fearers who prior to the coming of Yeshua and the Messianic Jewish faith were allowed to attend synagogue meetings only as standing guests at the open entry way to the synagogue. They could listen to and observe proceedings, but could not enter and sit among Jewish worshippers. Also at this time Jewish believers were still struggling with the idea that Gentiles could be included in the redemptive work of God (Acts 10:28). Therefore, riches and poverty were just one aspect of the problem of partiality (favouritism). In part there was a righteous motivation for excluding Gentiles, who were perceived to be pagans practicing lifestyles contrary to the Torah and therefore were a danger to the spiritual health of the Jewish community. However, Biblical Judaism has always taught Israel not to act with partiality. “17 You are not to recognize faces with partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You are not to be afraid of any person, for the judgment is God’s…” -D’varim/Deuteronomy 1:17 2 For if a person (anēr[G], iysh[H]) enters your synagogue (synagoge[G], l’veiyt hakeneset[H]) wearing a gold ring (chrusodaktulios[G], zahav al yado[H]), dressed in white, clean (lampros[G]) clothes, and a poor person, a beggar (ptōchos[G]) in shabby, dirty (rhuparos[G]) clothes also comes in, 3 and you gaze at the face of (epiblepō[G], poniym[H]) the one who is wearing the white, clean (lampros[G]) clothes, and say, “You sit here it’s a good (kalōs[G], tava’at[H]) spot,” and you say to the poor person, beggar (ptōchos[G]), “You stand (histēmi[G]) over there, or sit down (kathēmai[G]) by my footstool (hupopodion[G], rag’lay[H]),” 2 For if a person enters your synagogue wearing a gold ring, dressed in white, clean clothes, and a poor person, a beggar in shabby, dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and you gaze at the face of the one who is wearing the white, clean clothes, and say, “You sit here it’s a good spot,” and you say to the poor person, beggar, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” The Greek synagoge appears 57 times in the HaBriyt HaChadashah “New Testament” and is only once used to describe a non-Jewish assembly (Rev. 2:9). It is therefore unacceptable that the majority of English translations of the present text render synagoge[G] as “assembly, gathering, meeting” etc. This clouds the meaning and is at its core an antisemitic translational choice. Translators have attempted to make this very Jewish book of Yaakov sound more universal by hiding Jewish specific terms beneath generic terminology. It is important to understand that this letter was being written to functioning Messianic synagogues throughout the Diaspora sometime between 40 and 50 C.E. That means that the Messiah following Jewish communities in question were predominantly Messianic Jews joined by a small number of Gentiles (unconverted observers of 1st Century Judaism), and that the Jewish majority continued to worship as Jews in a traditional Jewish way within the revelation of Messiah Yeshua. We note that in this scenario the beggar in shabby clothing is being assigned either a standing position at or outside the door to the synagogue, or a seat on the floor. The former was once reserved for the “God fearing” Gentile (unconverted observer of 1st Century Judaism) and the latter for the lower class of Jew. However, In Messiah not only were the lower class Jews elevated, the Gentiles were now welcome to enter and be seated within the believing Jewish community. Ancient Jewish law concerning the equal treatment of rich and poor alike in judiciary matters is sighted by Maimonides: "Two adversaries (in a dispute with each other), if one of them is clothed with precious garments, goodly apparel, and the other is clothed with, vile clothing, (the judge) says to the honorable (wealthy) person, ‘either clothe him (the poor person) as you are clothed, while you contend with him, or be clothed as he is, so that you may be alike, on an equal footing.’'' -Maimonides on Hilchot Sanhedrin, c. 21. sect. 2. Further, with regard to social position as it applied to matters of law Maimonides sites the Talmud Bavliy: "One shall not sit, and another stand, but both shall stand; but if the Sanhedrin, or court, are pleased to let them sit, they sit; but one does not sit above, and the other below; but one by the side of the other.'' - Maimonides ib. sect. 3. vid. Talmud Bavliy Shebuot, fol. 30. 1. 4 Are you not then making separations, showing partiality (diakrinō[G]) among yourselves, and making (ginomai[G]) yourselves judges (kritēs[G], shoftiym[H]) with thoughts (dialogismos[G]) of evil, intentional harm (ponēros[G], resha[H])? 5 Listen, hear, comprehend, understand (shimu[H]) my completely loved brothers and sisters, fellow Jews (adelphos agapētos[G], achay ahuvay[H]): did the God (ho Theos[G], Elohiym[H]) not select (eklegomai[G]) the poor, beggar (ptōchos[G]) of this world (kosmos toutou[G], haolam[H]) to be rich (plousios[G]) in faith, trust, persuasion, belief (pistis[G], Emunah[H]) and heirs (klēronomos[G]) of the kingdom (ho basileia[G], hamalchut[H]) which He announced, promised (epaggellō[G], hivtiyach[H]) to those who love Him completely, fully (ha agapaō autos[G], leohavayv[H])? 4 Are you not then making separations, showing partiality among yourselves, and making yourselves judges with thoughts of evil, intentional harm? 5 Listen, hear, comprehend, understand my completely loved brothers and sisters, fellow Jews: did the God not select the poor, beggar of this world to be rich in faith, trust, persuasion, belief and heirs of the kingdom which He announced, promised to those who love Him completely, fully? We note that it is not distinctions but separations among the Jewish believing community that are being addressed. The primary issue is wrong motivations (yetzer hara) and the passing of judgement based on outward appearances. Yeshua had commanded His disciples to stop judging by mere appearances and make right judgements (John 7:24). Yaakov is not instructing the Jewish believers not to judge but instead not to make false judgements. When we judge by appearances we are submitting our judgement to the sin affected reality of this temporary world, whereas when we judge according to God’s Spirit we are distinguishing between the temporal and the eternal and choosing the eternal (2 Cor. 4:18). Yaakov is reminding his fellow Messiah following dispersed countrymen that their understanding of what obedience to the Torah (Instruction) requires had always included just treatment of all people within the Jewish community. This is not a foreign practice to his readers, it had simply become a neglected one within the Jewish communities of the Diaspora. Why? Because they had adopted, or syncretised pagan Hellenistic practices. “Do not pervert justice or show partiality—undue favour for one over another. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent.” -D’varim/Deuteronomy 16:19 The real issue being addressed here is the motive of the human core (heart) that is the point from which all the parts of our being emanate rather than the heart in opposition to the mind. Perhaps money was needed for the running of the synagogue, the purchase of Torah scrolls etc.? Whatever the reason for showing favouritism, the Torah clearly instructs against the practice. “did the God not select the poor, beggar of this world to be rich in faith, trust, persuasion, belief…” We note that the text does not say “God chose the poor to be rich”, but “God chose the poor to be rich in faith.” The false Prosperity Gospel misses the point. What good are temporal riches that dull the faith of a person? God wills prosperity for the believer in Himself, but He does not will our temporal material prosperity except that it be utilised in the furthering of His Kingdom. “What good does it do a person to gain the entire world but loose his soul?” (Mk. 8:36; Matt. 16:26) The materially poor are rich in faith because they are devoid of the distraction of temporal riches. Those who are materially poor are inclined toward trusting God because they have nothing and no one but God to place their trust in. Therefore, material poverty can act as a vehicle for spiritual prosperity. “The meek will inherit the land and enjoy peace and prosperity.” - Tehillim/Psalm 37:11 “Blessing comes from God for the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” – Mattitiyahu/Matthew 5:3 As I have said, Yaakov admonishes his hearers to “Look not to what is seen but to what is unseen, for what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is everlasting” (2 Cor. 4:18). In particular Yaakov is using phrasing that speaks to the 1st Century Jewish view of the Gentiles. He is employing specific terminology. For example ancient Jewish commentary refers to aniy Yisrael “the poor of Israel” as being distinct from aniy olam “the poor of the world”*. The “world” was seen as synonymous with “goyim” nations, pagans. Therefore, in one sense “the poor of this world” is understood by Yaakov’s hearers as referring to the Gentiles who are both poor in respect to physical wealth and in respect to spiritual health. This makes the teaching somewhat offensive to the early Jewish believers which is why Yaakov has prepared them by saying “Be quick to listen and slow to anger” (1:19-20). *Talmud Bavliy. Gittin, fol. 30. 1. & Bava Batra, fol. 10. 2. “The Kingdom which He promised to those who love Him fully.” The receiving of the Kingdom is simple, it is given to those who love Him fully. Do you love Him (God) fully, in Messiah? Then the Kingdom is given to you. Devoid of Messiah Yeshua we are all poor, lacking, dressed in filth. 6 But you have despised, dishonoured (atimazō[G]) the poor person (ptōchos[G]). Is it not the rich (plousios[G]) who oppress, exercise harsh control over (katadunasteuō[G]) you and drag (helkuō[G]) you before (eis[G]) judgement seats (kritērion[H], levateiy mishpat[H])? 7 Do they not blaspheme, speak evil of (blasphēmeō[G]) the good (kalos[G], hatovah[H]) name (onoma[G], HaShem[H]) by which you have been called (epikaleomai[G], hanikra aleiychem[H])? 6 But you have despised, dishonoured the poor person. Is it not the rich who oppress, exercise harsh control over you and drag you before judgement seats? 7 Do they not blaspheme, speak evil of the good name by which you have been called? Put concisely, don’t do to fellow believers of any ethnicity what is being done to you by non-believers. The foolish false choice posed by various Christian theologians, Hebrew Roots and Messianic writers asking “To Whom does ‘the good name’ refer?” is ludicrous. First because God is One and second because nothing could be further from Hebraic practice than a refusal to accept both interpretations as valid. Ultimatums are contrary to Biblical Hebrew thought. Scripture shines a light on cause and effect and God speaks clearly concerning action and consequence, practice and outcomes, whereas ultimatums are the domain of fallen humanity. The early Jewish believers were being taken to court on false charges by both rich Gentiles who hated them because of their association to YHVH, El Elohay Yisrael (the God of Israel v.5) and by rich rabbinical Jews who hated them due to their association with Yeshua HaMashiyach (Jesus the King Messiah v.1). So, in response to the false choice posed by Christian and Messianic Scholars alike “Which Name is being referred to, YHVH or Jesus?” we respond, “Yes!” “The good Name” is YHVH (v.5), Yeshua (v.1), Elohiym, El Elyon, El Shaddai, El Gibor, Adonay Yireh, Adonay Shalom, Sar shalom, Imanu-El… Adonay Eloheinu Adonay echad (God is One)! 8 If, however, you are being filled with (teleō[G]), the Kingly (basilikos[G], hamalchut[H]) Torat[H]/specific law/instruction (nomos[G]) according to the Writings/Scripture (graphe[G], Ketuvim/kakatuv[H]), “You shall love your neighbour as yourself, [Lev. 19:18]” you are doing good (kalōs[G], heiytavtem[H]). 9 But if you show partiality, favouritism (prosōpolēpteō[G]), you are committing (ergazomai[G]) sin, missing the mark set by God’s holiness (hamartia[G]) and are rebuked, convicted (elegchō[G]) by the Torah[H]/Law (ho nomos[G], haTorah[H]) as Torah/law breakers (parabatēs[G]). 8 If, however, you are being filled with, the Kingly Torat/specific law/instruction according to the Writings/Scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself, [Lev. 19:18]” you are doing good. 9 But if you show partiality, favouritism, you are committing sin, missing the mark set by God’s holiness and are rebuked, convicted by the Torah/Law as Torah/law breakers. “If, however, you are being filled with, the Kingly Torat/specific law/instruction according to the Writings/Scripture” We must first take note of the specificity of Yaakov’s language regarding “law”. In this verse he speaks of a particular “Kingly” or “Royal” nomos[G]/torat[H] that is found in the fullness of the TaNaKh, or Ketuvim (Writings, Hebrew Bible). By quoting the very specific law (torat, a part of the Torah) “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Le. 19:18), Yaakov is passing on the teaching of His brother Yeshua the Messiah, Who summed up the Torah of Moses and the Prophets this way: 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Torah?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the head and great commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments hang the entire Torah and hanevi’im.” -Mattitiyahu (Matthew) 22:36-40 Yaakov calls the summation of Yeshua’s teaching on the Torah and the Prophets the “Kingly Torah”, as distinct from the Torah of Moses. As I have explained previously, while aspects of the Torah of Moses are present as part of the whole of the “Kingly Torah, Torah Perfected, Torah of Freedom”, the clear distinctions made by both Yaakov and Rav Shaul, based on the teaching of Yeshua, mean that we cannot simplistically understand Torah in these verses to refer to the Torah of Moses except when it is clearly qualified as it is in verse 9 where the Greek reads “ho nomos” the Torah. In verses 8-9 Yaakov speaks to those Jews called in Yeshua to act in accordance with the Kingly Torah of Yeshua and to recognize their hypocrisy in the face of both the Kingly Torah and the Torah of Moses. Parts of the Torah of Moses will pass away, but nothing of the Kingly Torah of Yeshua will ever pass away. Yaakov’s audience is Jewish, when they hear “torat” they understand a singular aspect of the Torah, and when they hear the words “ha Torah” at the end of verse 9 they recognize the Torah of Moses. Yaakov then, is linking the Kingly Torah of God’s Messiah with the Torah of Moses while making a clear distinction between the two. Therefore the Kingly Torah as understood through the lens of the pivotal verse, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” thus creating a unity of belief and action born in the freedom of Messiah’s teaching. The point being that Yaakov is not inventing a new kind of Torah, he is revealing the Torah filled with Messiah and driven by the Ruach ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit). As I have explained, there are parts of the Torah of Moses which will become obsolete at the point of final judgment and our entry into the Olam Haba (world to come), but as Messiah himself has said, “I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away not one minor or major mark will disappear from the Torah until all things are accomplished.” – Mattitiyahu/Matthew 5:18 “Zayit Ra’anan says… ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, says, “you sin in this world because the yetzer hara (evil inclination) governs you; but in the Olam haba (world to come), I will take it (yetzer ha-ra) away from you;” as it is said in Ezekiel 36:26 “I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”’” – Midrash Yalkut Shim’oni (medieval) When we abide in the Kingly Torah within Messiah we do well, recognizing the discipline and instruction of God. On the other hand, when we give in to the yetzer ha-ra “fallen inclination”, we cloud our ability to see the Kingly Torah (which brings liberty). When we wilfully break the Torah we deceive ourselves and are in danger of believing the lie that we are no longer secure. The irony here is that in showing favouritism we are endanger of believing that at some point we could lose God’s favour. Therefore, we must show others the favour that God has shown us in Messiah. “You shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people (Israel), and you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am YHVH.” -Leviticus 19:18 We note that “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” is the second clause in the commandment being quoted by Yaakov. The commandment begins by saying “You shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people (Israel)”. Therefore, Yaakov is addressing the problem of early Jewish believers discriminating not only against the poor and bedraggled but also against Gentile believers. “Owe no person anything, but to love one another: for those who love one another have fully filled the Torah.” -Rav shaul: Letter to the Roman Believers 13:8 Those who are focused on the Messiah and as a result love others as themselves are fully filling the Torah of Moses, whereas those focused on attempting to fully observe the Torah of Moses are continually failing to do so. With regard to Torah there is no “try”, there is only “Do” and “Do not”. How much better then to request that God manifest Himself in me through Yeshua, than to seek to reach Him through the delusional claim of Torah observance. 10 For whoever keeps, guards (tēreō[G]) the entire (holos[G]) Torah[H]/Law (nomos[G]), yet stumbles, falls, offends (ptaiō[G]) in one (heis[G]), has become guilty, subject (enochos[G]) of all, individually and collectively (pas[G]). 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do murder, you have made yourself (ginomai[G]) a breaker (parabatēs[G]) of the Torah[H]/Law (nomos[G]). 10 For whoever keeps, guards the entire Torah[H]/Law, yet stumbles, falls, offends in one, has become guilty, subject of all, individually and collectively. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do murder, you have made yourself a breaker of the Torah[H]/Law. Given the context this teaching says, “If you’re keeping most of the laws of the Torah but are breaking the Kingly law to love your neighbour as yourself, then the Torah exposes your guilt and you come under the judgement of the entire Torah.” Those who claim that Yaakov teaches Torah Observance are delusional. He is in fact teaching that Torah Observance (with the exception of Yeshua) is impossible. This is consistent with what Yaakov says in Acts 15. The early Jewish Fathers of the Body of believers agreed that Torah Observance was not incumbent on the Gentile believers. Those demanding that Gentile believers be circumcised were silenced by Rav Shaul (Paul), Yaakov, and Kefa (Peter). It is important to note that the two commandments mentioned here by Yaakov are to do with the love of one’s neighbour. It is often the case that as we journey with God we begin to become complacent. On a historical level the physical separation of the Messianic Jews in the Diaspora from the Jews of Israel was a living metaphor for their journey away from right action. When we become complacent in our faith we can fall into the trap of considering some commandments more important than others, thus we justify sinful action based on a sort of sin hierarchy where murder is bad but lusting after my neighbour’s wife is just what men are prone to do. Yaakov reminds his Jewish brothers and sisters that when we say to God, “I’ll keep most of your commandments but I don’t agree with this one, so I’ll just ignore it,” we are already guilty. As I have already stated, in more general terms Yaakov is teaching the one who says, “I am a Torah keeper” that such a statement is lie and thus breaks Torah. With the exception of Yeshua no one can claim to be a Torah keeper. I am obligated to add a further warning concerning a grave mis-teaching within the modern Messianic movement which makes Torah Observance an object of worship: Those who teach the lie "Obeying Torah is the fruit of salvation" mis-qualify both Torah and salvation. "Messiah is the goal of Torah" unto works of righteousness. Torah observance is not the goal, end, or fruit of Messiah. If it were, Messiah would be subject to Torah, but instead He is the Author and Goal of it. It is not Torah observance that is the fruit of the redeemed but right action. Ezekiel 36:26-27 explains that by the Spirit of Life (Holy Spirit) in Messiah Yeshua (Rom.8:2), we are empowered to act according to His (YHVH) prescribed (בְּקִרְבְּכֶם) way of living and according to His judgements (מִשְׁפָּטַי). Torah is not mentioned. Why? Because observance of the Torah of Moses is not the goal, end, or fruit. Thus we are "set free from the Torah of sin and death (the result of a failure to observe the unkeepable Mosaic Torah)" [Rom.8:2]. Peter (Rav Kefa) explains that no one can "bear" the "burden" of Torah observance (Acts 15:10). Yaakov (James) and the early Jewish Fathers of the body of faith along with Peter, agreed that therefore Gentile believers should not be taught Torah observance but to simply refrain from all forms of idolatry in accordance with the universally moral commandments of God (10 commandments minus Shabbat, which is a sign on ethnic Israel, the Jews [Ex.31:16-17]) Peter said this as a Spirit filled Messiah follower, not as an unsaved pre-Messianic Jew. Therefore, Peter and the early Jewish Fathers of the Body of believers agree that Torah observance is not the fruit of salvation. We add to this the teaching of Yeshua, Rav Shaul, and the Kohen (probably Barnabas) who wrote the Book to the Hebrews: Rom. 3:20; 4:14; 4:15; 5:20; 6:14; 7:1-13; 8:2-3, 1 Cor. 15:56, 2 Cor. 3:7; 3:9; 3:10; 3:12; 3:14-17, Gal. 2:16; 2:19; 2:21; 3:1;3:10; 3:11-12; 3:13; 3:16 & 19, (ref. Matt. 11:12-13, Luke 16:16), Gal. 3:21; 3:23; 4:24; Eph. 2:15, Phlp. 3:4-8; 1 Tim. 1:8 (Torah was made for the unrighteous, not for the righteous.) 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Heb. 7:18-19; 8:7-8; 8:13; 10:1. It is wrong to say that “Torah is done away with”, it is equally wrong to say that “Torah observance is the goal, end, fruit” or otherwise. When using "Torah" as a proper noun we speak in general terms that lack the nuisance of the wider definition. This is why the writers of the HaBrit HaChadashah (NT) often use qualifying terms in relationship to Torah (Instruction). "because through Messiah Yeshua the Torah* of the Spirit of life (Torah of Messiah) has set you free from the Torah* of sin and death. (Result of the failure to keep the unkeepable Torah of Moses)" -Romans 8:2 So called "Messianics" need to stop arguing over the keeping of days and the obeying of laws and return to the Person of Messiah Yeshua in God. No one will stand at the judgement and be able to use Torah observance as a means of redemption. If we claim to be Torah observant we make ourselves to be liars. As I have said, with regard to Torah there is no "try", there is “do” and “do not”. No human being (with the exception of the King Messiah) can keep the Torah perfectly. I do not keep the Torah, rather the Torah perfected of the Spirit of life keeps me in Messiah Yeshua. Those in the so called "Messianic" movement who claim to be Torah observant are lying. They are idolaters of the worst kind because in focusing on Torah they have turned their backs on the Author of it. It is for freedom that Messiah has set us free! *The word Torah must be qualified 12 So speak (laleō[G], davru[H]), and so do (poieō[G]), as those who are to be judged (krino[G]) by the Torah[H]/law (nomos[G], Torah[H]) of freedom, liberty (eleutheria[G], shel cheirut[H]). 13 For judgment (krisis[G], badiyn[H]) devoid of mercy (me eleos[G], eiyn rachamiym[H]) will be shown to one who has shown no mercy (me eleos[G], nahag rachamiym[H]); the mercy (eleos[G], harachamiym[H]) rejoices against, is glorious over, triumphs over, perpetually boasts against (katakauchaomai[G]) the judgment (krisis[G], hadiyn[H]). 14 What does it profit (ophelos[G]), my brothers and sisters, fellow Jews (mou adelphos[G], achay[H]) if someone says he has faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], emunah[H]), but he has no works, actions (me ergon[G])? Can faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], emunah[H]) save (sōzō[G], lehoshiyo[H]) him? 12 So speak, and so do, as those who are to be judged by the Torah[H]/law of freedom, liberty. 13 For judgment devoid of mercy will be shown to one who has shown no mercy; the mercy rejoices against, is glorious over, triumphs over, perpetually boasts against the judgment. 14 What does it profit, my brothers and sisters, fellow Jews if someone says he has faith, trust, belief, persuasion, but he has no works, actions? Can faith, trust, belief, persuasion save him? Yaakov admonishes his Jewish brothers and sisters who follow Messiah Yeshua to speak and act as those being judged, not by the Torah of Moses but by the Torah of Liberty. The wonderful result of accepting God’s mercy is that we will in turn show mercy to others, thus “Mercy triumphs over judgment” (that is mercy triumphs over a judgment of condemnation). Mercy triumphs in the judgment that brings discipline and freedom, thus we have the Torah of Messiah that brings Liberty. There are those who are uncomfortable with the plain Greek text saying “can faith save him?” They add to it translating “can that faith save him”. There is no need to add “that” to the text. One who is convinced that his faith need not be acted on does not accept the saving faith of Yeshua and therefore cannot be saved by faith. More to the point, faith cannot save, rather the Messiah Yeshua in Whom we place true faith, He is the Saviour. Thus Messiah in us outworks faith through us. We act righteously because we have received the nature of Messiah. Here Yaakov is speaking of a divisive faith, a faith that compartmentalizes life. The action of a pumping heart is the proof that a man is alive, when the heart ceases its action the body is dead. The predisposition of the Holy Spirit Who lives in us, is to help those in need, in order to fail to help the destitute we must first resist the Ruach ha-Kodesh, for a believer this is known as grieving (not blaspheming) the Spirit. The conclusion then is this, isolated faith is dead. In a believer however, the failure to act causes conviction of spirit and therefore revives the body. It is as if the heart has lost its rhythm temporarily for lack of vigour and then the Spirit pulls out the shock panels and gives us a jump start. 15 If a brother (adelphos[G], ach[H]) or sister (adelphē[G], achot[H]) is naked (gumnos[G]) and lacks (leipō[G]) daily (ephēmeros[G]) food, bread (lechem[H]) 16 and any one (tis[G]) of you says to them, “Go (hupagō[G]) in peace, wholeness, wellbeing (eirēnē[G], leshalom[H]), be warmed (thermainō[G]) and be filled (chortazō[G]),” yet you don’t give (didōmi[G]) them the things they need (epitēdeios[G]) for their body (sōma[G]), what use is that (ophelos[G], mah hoaltem[H])? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, bread 16 and any one of you says to them, “Go in peace, wholeness, wellbeing, be warmed and be filled,” yet you don’t give them the things they need for their body, what use is that? “is naked and lacks daily bread” “Give us today our daily bread” is part of the formula of Tefilat haTalmidim “The Disciples Prayer” taught by Yeshua the King Messiah (Matt. 6:9-13). Here Yaakov reminds his hearers that in relationship through Messiah they are to participate in godly acts of provision. What fool, having prayed “Give us today our daily bread”, then sends his believing brother or sister away without bread for the day? “Go in peace, wholeness, wellbeing, be warmed and be filled,” yet you don’t give them the things they need for their body, what use is that? To wish a fellow believer, in this case a fellow Jewish believer “Peace, wholeness, and wellbeing”, knowing that they are distressed, incomplete, unwell, and having the means to give them peace, wholeness and wellbeing, is an abhorrent act of rebellion against the specific Kingly Torah command “You shall love your neighbour as yourself!” 17 In the same way, faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], ha’emunah[H]) also, if it has no works, actions, deeds (ergon[G]) is dead, necrotic (nekros[G], meitah[H]) being alone, separate, apart (kata heautou[G], ). 18 But someone might say, “You have faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) and I have works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]); show me your faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) without the works, actions (ergon[G]), and I will show you my faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) by my works, actions (ergon[G]).” 17 In the same way, faith, trust, belief, persuasion also, if it has no works, actions, deeds is dead, necrotic being alone, separate, apart. 18 But someone might say, “You have faith and I have works, actions; show me your faith without the works, actions and I will show you my faith by my works, actions.” Yaakov is not saying “I will show you my faith by my Torah observance”, a curse on that idea! The works, actions in question are right actions, otherwise known as righteousness. Yaakov is saying “The evidence of my faith is in the right actions that proceed from it”. It is not Torah observance that produces Yaakov’s right actions but faith in Messiah that produces them. This is a foundational doctrine of the Messianic Faith that has been abused by far too many so called “Messianic” teachers who promote the false doctrine of “Torah Observance” in contradiction of the teaching of Yaakov, Yochanan and Rav Shaul. The Hebraic back and forth of Yaakov’s work is a reflection of Yeshua’s teaching style, and is in turn reflected in Rav Shaul’s works. It was and remains a strong rabbinical technique that acts to expose flawed or self-defeating thinking (circular logic). Like a heart that doesn’t pump blood, faith without action is dead. The words, “faith by itself without right action is dead,” are a precursor to the final words of this portion of Yaakov. It is important to note that faith in unity with right action is life. The blood, the heart and the oxygen are all required in order to unify the living body. It’s as if Yaakov were saying “Show me life in a heart that doesn’t beat and I will show you life in my beating heart!” “Really?” Says Yaakov, with incredulity. “You’re able to exhibit faith without acting righteously? Okay, but I will exhibit faith by acting in unity with the Holy Spirit.” Faith, being unseen cannot be seen except in action. Therefore, the one who fails to act proves himself faithless. Faith devoid of right action is not only a corpse, it is a necrotic, stinking corpse. Ironically, faith without the evidence of right action produces a spiritual stench in the nostrils of the faithful. 19 You believe (pisteuō[G]) that the God (ho Theos[G], haElohiym[H]) is one (heis[G], echad[H]) well done (poieō kalōs[G]); the demons (ho daimonion[G], hasheidiym[H]) also believe (pisteuō[G]), and shudder, tremble, stiffen, are horrified (phrissō[G]). 20 Now (de[G]) are you willing to know, act on the knowledge (ginōskō[G]), you vain, empty (kenos[G]) person (anthrōpos[G], iysh[H]), that faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], emunah[H]) without works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) is barren, dead, necrotic (nekros[G], akarah[H])? 19 You believe that the God is one well done; the demons also believe, and shudder, tremble, stiffen, are horrified. 20 Now are you willing to know, act on the knowledge, you vain, empty person, that faith, trust, belief, persuasion without works, actions is barren, dead, necrotic? Many, lacking knowledge of ancient Biblical Jewish practice, and indeed of Jewish practice in general, fail to understand just how harsh these words of Yaakov are, even beyond their apparent abruptness. Yaakov is pulling out the big guns. One can see why prior to this he had instructed his hearers to be quick to listen and slow to anger (1:19-20). Yaakov is quite literally quoting the Shema in the present verse. “You say, ‘Shema (hear, listen, perceive and understand), Oh Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is Echad (One, a unity).’ Be’seder, okay, good for you, so you recite the Shema three times a day, mazel tov (Congratulations)! The demons know the words of the Shema also, they believe that God is One, and it scares the crap out of them. You see, belief is subject to inclination. If your inclination is evil (yetzer ha-ra) then your belief is redundant. Further to the insult, the Greek kenos (empty, vain) interprets the Hebrew/Aramaic Raka, Reyka used in Matthew 5:22. This is yet another example of how context and motivation affect the interpretation and application of Scripture. Yeshua teaches that no one should call another by the term Raka from a motivation of willing death on them. However, in the context of Yaakov’s writing, describing a foolish person as a fool is a valid application of Biblical doctrine. 21 Was our father (Avinu[H]) Avraham[H] not justified (dikaioō[G]) by works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) when he bore, lead, offered (anapherō[G]) up his son Yitzchak[H] (Isaac) on the altar (thusiastērion[G], haMizbeach[H])? 22 You see that faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], haemunah[H]) together (sunergeō[G]) with his works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]), and as a result of the works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]), faith, trust, belief, persuasion (pistis[G], emunah[H]) was made perfect, fully filled, made whole, well-constructed (teleioō[G], hush’lemah[H]). 21 Was our father Avraham not justified by works, actions when he bore, led, offered up his son Yitzchak (Isaac) on the altar? 22 You see that faith, trust, belief, persuasion together with his works, actions, and as a result of the works, actions, faith, trust, belief, persuasion was made perfect, fully filled, made whole, well-constructed. Yaakov is not saying that Avraham was justified by actions alone but that his right actions were evidence of his faith and thus he was justified. This is affirmed by verse 22. Notice that Avraham’s actions were born of faith. Right action is the fruit of faith, the evidence of healthy roots, and just as a fruit tree is imperfect without fruit, so faith without right action is barren. Yaakov uses the word complete/full/perfect, here in unity with the word One/echad from the previous verses. He is showing that God, Who is One, Completes or makes One, faith and action. “In faith, trust, assurance, belief Avraham, when he was examined, proved, brought up Yitzchak [Isaac], and the one who had received the promises was offering up his only son;” -Hebrews 11:17 (Author’s translation) 23 and the Scripture, TaNaKh (Torah, Prophets, Writings), [Hebrew Bible] (ho graphē[G], hakatuv[H]) was fulfilled (plēroō[G]) which says, “And Avraham believed, agreed with (pisteuō[G], vayamein[H]) God (Theos[G], Elohiym[H]), and it was counted (logizomai[G]) to him as righteousness, charity, practical love (dikaiosunē[G], tzedakah[H]), [Gen. 15:6]” and he was called a friend (philos[G]) of God (Theos[G], Elohiym[H]). 24 You see, perceive (horaō[G]) therefore, now truly (toinun[G]) that a person is justified (dikaioō[G]) by works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) and not by faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) alone (monon[G]). 23 and the Scripture, TaNaKh, Hebrew Bible was fulfilled which says, “And Avraham believed, agreed with God, and it was counted to him as righteousness, charity, practical love, [Gen. 15:6]” and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see, perceive therefore, now truly that a person is justified by works, actions and not by faith alone. So, Avraham’s faith/belief/trust, was credited to him as right action. Now we see right action as the recompense/payment/credit/reward of right faith/trust/belief. The declaration of a man’s righteousness is made by those who observe his right action, while the right action itself is the declaration of right faith. 25 In the same way, was Rachav[H] the prostitute (pornē[G]) not justified (dikaioō[G]) by works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) also when she allowed entry to (hupodechomai[G]) the messengers, angels (aggelos[G], malakhiym[H]) and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body (sōma[G], shehaguf[H]) without the spirit (pneuma[G], ruach[H]) is dead (nekros[G], meit[H]), so also faith (pistis[G], emunah[H]) without works, actions (ergon[G], ma’asiym[H]) is dead (nekros[G], meitah[H]). 25 In the same way, was Rachav the prostitute not justified by works, actions also when she allowed entry to the messengers, angels and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works, actions is dead. “And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.” -Joshua 2:1 “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” -Hebrews 11:31 It was Rahab’s faith in the God of Israel that motivated her to act to save her children and protect her family. She rightly believed that God was able to destroy the city of Jericho. Therefore her genuine faith bore the fruit of right action. Finally, “Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so to faith without right action is dead.” The spirit and faith correlate to one another and the body and action are also a pair. From this we can conclude that both these combinations (faith and works as well as spirit and body) become unclean when separated. To a Jew a dead body (according to the Torah) is unclean, so Yaakov is making a startling, even defiling insinuation. “If your faith lacks right action you are spiritually unclean and if your actions lack true faith then your actions are unclean. I know you’ve been living in the Diaspora among Greeks for some time now but don’t be misled by Greek philosophy,” says Yaakov, “they seek to divide and conquer, or have you forgotten that we Jews understand life as a unity, a functioning being of many parts, all interconnected. ‘Shema Yisrael, Adonai, Elohaynu, Adonai echad!’” “the body without the spirit is dead.” This is a known Jewish saying, recorded in Ohel Moed, fol. 15. 1. “Therefore we conclude that a person is justified by faith without the works of the Torah.” -Romans 3:28 When we place this teaching of Yaakov alongside that of Rav Shaul we see that Yaakov is emphasising the right action born of faith as being “works”. He is not saying that Torah observance is the right action but that right action is evidence of the Kingly Torah taught by Messiah, which is at work in the believer. Torah observance is motivated by human effort whereas right action results from relationship, that relationship being offered by God and received by the believer. Thus, Avraham first believed God and subsequently offered up his son Isaac. Note that the Torah was yet to be given to Israel at the point of Avraham’s belief and right action. Therefore, Avraham was not seeking to observe Torah but rather to respond to God in righteousness, thus Avraham’s unified faith in action was credited to him as righteousness. In Messiah Yeshua there is no separation of faith and works. There are faith-works and there is working-faith. When Shaul/Paul says, “You are saved by faith alone, and not by works, that no one might boast,” he is rebuking boasting (which is work without faith). We are better to understand Paul this way, “It is by faith unified that you are saved and not by works (deeds devoid of faith) so that no one should boast about having earned their own right standing with God.” Shaul is definitely not contradicting Yaakov, a man whose authority he both submitted to and respected. On the contrary, Shaul affirms Yaakov’s teaching. Of course this should come as no surprise, given that the Ruach ha-Kodesh inspired the words of both men. I will conclude this way, concerning faith and right action: what God has made one, let no man separate. © 2022 Yaakov Brown “You say that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into this world, to testify, bear witness to the immutable truth. Everyone who is of the immutable truth hears in My voice.” The beginning of the so called “Passion Narrative” John 18:1-19:42 (Matthew 26:30-27:61; Mark 14:26-15:47; Luke 22:39-23:56)
Introduction: Yeshua’s words to the disciples following the Pesach (Passover) Seder (John 13) and prior to crossing the Kidron valley to Gat Sheminim (Gethsemane), which included an open prayer to the Father concerning protection and reassurances of purpose, now come to a conclusion. What follows takes place across the Kidron valley (east of Jerusalem) in the garden of Gethsemane at the base of the Mount of Olives. It’s interesting to note that the author of Yochanan’s gospel doesn’t include Yeshua’s anguished prayers in the garden or the inability of the disciples to stay awake and keep watch. However the reference to the cup of suffering (v.11) corresponds to the prayers in the garden (Luke 22:42). John’s gospel which has been focused from the beginning on the all existing nature of the Messiah now reveals “God with us” as Lamb to slaughter. The impressive supernatural occurrence that results from Yeshua’s powerful declaration of identity in response to those seeking to arrest Him affirms His authority and illuminates further the convergent theme of Creator as Word having entered His creation. Among other things the gospel writer focuses on the actions of his dear friend Kefa (Peter), a man who is fiercely protective of Yeshua and also suffers great emotional and spiritual turmoil over the denial of Him. The motives of Pilate are illuminated in John’s gospel which implicitly alludes to his involvement in the arrest of Yeshua (v.3, 12), his nonchalant attitude toward Yeshua’s kingship (v.37-38) and his provocation of the Judean leaders (v.39). It’s worth noting that history records Pilate as a man who sought to provoke the Jews in order to justify harsh military response. He was not the innocent bystander that so many Christian commentators make him out to be. 1 Yeshua[H] (Iesous[G], Joshua, YHVH Saves, Jesus) spoke (epo[G]) these words, then He went forth with His disciples (talmidim[H]) over the valley (ravine) of the Kidron[H] (dark, from the root “kadar” to mourn) , where there was a garden (Gat Sheminim[H], press of olives), in which He entered with His disciples (talmidim[H]). 2 Now Y’hudah[H] (Praise, Judas Iscariot) also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Yeshua[H] had often met there with His disciples (talmidim[H]). “These words” refers to the words taught, spoken, prayed over the last several preceding chapters (from chapter 13 to the present chapter) as Yeshua and His talmidim had walked through Jerusalem from the location of the Passover Seder meal, to the other side of the city (the east side). The Kidron was known at least in part as a valley of refuse. The Levites had once cast the unclean things which had been cleaned out of the Temple into the Kidron valley at Hezekiah’s command to cleanse the Temple of idolatrous elements (2 Chronicles 29:16). There is a correlation here. Yeshua’s death and resurrection will ultimately cleanse the Temple to such a degree that God Himself and the Lamb will dwell in place of the Temple (Rev. 21:22). “Kidron” means “darkness and mourning” and may be the physical valley that acts as figure for the “valley of the shadow of death” described in Psalm 23.“Gat Sheminim” means “press of olives (crushing of olives), an olive press”. It is fitting that Yeshua walk through “the valley of the shadow of death” to that place where He would firmly decide to drink the cup of wrath that the Father had given Him to drink. As a result of Yeshua being crushed He would resurrect, return to the Father and pour out the oil of His Spirit upon all who would believe. There is a correlation to be made between the crossing of the Kidron by Yeshua and His disciples and the crossing of the Kidron made by king David and his retinue (2 Samuel 15:23). In the wake of Absalom’s betrayal of David (a prefigure of Y’hudah’s betrayal of Yeshua), David crosses the valley of darkness and mourning (Kidron) and into exile. In some respects this is what Yeshua is doing here: He will go into a temporary exile through death, but like David before Him He will return a conquering King and Ruler. Gethsemane was a favourite meeting place of Yeshua and His talmidim. It was located not far from Bethany (the town of Lazarus, Mary and Martha) and was close to the city of Jerusalem (approx. 2.5 km away) so as to be a convergent point in the many travels of Yeshua and His talmidim. There is another correlation here with respect to the garden. Just as the first Adam received sin into the world in Gan Eden (the garden of Eden [delight]) so too the Last Adam Yeshua (1 Corinthians 15:45) firmly decided to bring about the removal of sin from this world in and through Gat Sheminim (the pressing of olives [oil]). 3 Y’hudah[H] (Praise, Judas Iscariot) then, having received the 600-1000 strong cohort (speira[G], spiral) and servants from the chief priests (archiereus[G], hakohaniym[H]) and the P’rushiym[H] (Separate, distinct, chased ones, Pharisees), came there with torches (phanos[G]) and oil lamps (lampas[G]) and weapons. “Speira” describes a Roman cohort. This means that Pilate was at least tacitly involved in the arrest of Yeshua. The cohort could not have been deployed without his full knowledge and approval. The Jewish Temple guard was smaller in number and thus could not qualify as a “cohort”. Further the cohort is said to be accompanied by the servants of the chief priests (predominantly Sadducees, some of whom would have been Temple guards) and representatives of the Pharisees (the sect controlling religious politics among the wider Jewish community). The Pharisees did not have their own guard, they were there purely as religious leaders. The full number of those who came to arrest Yeshua was approximately 1200. Matthew’s gospel calls those who came to arrest Yeshua “a great multitude” armed with “swords and long spears” (Matt. 26:47). 4 So Yeshua[H], seeing, perceiving (eido[G]) all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” Yeshua had already seen these things completed outside of time and space in His position as Word Essence within the Godhead (John 1:1). 17 For this reason the Father (ho Pater[G], ha Av[H]) loves (oheiv[H]) Me, because I lay down My life, breath, soul existence (et-nafshiy[H]) so that I may take it up again. 18 No one, nothing (oudeis[G]) has taken it away from Me or separated (apo[G]) Me from it, but I lay it down on My own initiative, in My Own power, by My Own choice (exousia[G]). I have authority, power, choice (exousia[G]) to lay it down, and to take it up again. This commandment (entole[G]) I received from My Father (Pater mou[G], Aviy[H]).” -Yochanan (John) 10:17-18 The Messiah was prophesied to lay down His life for the people of Israel (Isaiah 53:1-12; Psalm 16:8-11). Yeshua knew Whom they sought. His question was for their sake. We might understand Yeshua’s question as “You come in the authority of Rome and the Jewish religious politicians, but do you truly realise the authority of the Person Whom you seek?” This is partially revealed to them in the power that emanates from Yeshua in the proceeding verse. 5 They answered Him, “Yeshua[H] the Nasraya[A] (Nazarene, HaNatzriy[H], consecrated, devoted one, from netzer - branch).” He said to them, “I Am, I Exist (ego eimi[G]).” And Y’hudah[H] also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. 6 So when He said to them, “I Am, I Exist (ego eimi[G]),” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Therefore He again asked them, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Yeshua[H] the Nasraya[A] (Nazarene, HaNatzriy[H], consecrated, devoted one).” It is literally true to say that based on the residence of His middle years Yeshua was from the town of Nazareth and was therefore, a Natzriy (Nazarene). It is also true to say that He is the Netzer (Branch) at the root of Natzriy and is come to fully fill prophecy concerning the Mashiach. Although the speakers do not comprehend what they are saying, the response they give to Yeshua’s question, “we seek Yeshua the consecrated, devoted Branch”, is a prophetic statement of affirmation concerning the role that Yeshua fills as prophesied by the prophet Isaiah: “Then a shoot will come forth out of the stem of Y’shai, and a branch (nezter) will bear fruit out of His roots. 2 The Ruach of Adonai will rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and insight, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Adonai” -Y’shayahu (Isaiah) 11:1-2 Zechariah the prophet speaks a similar word concerning the Messiah but uses a different word for branch “tsemach”. “Listen well, Joshua kohen gadol, both you and your companions seated before you, because they are men who are a miraculous sign—behold, I will bring forth My servant the Branch.” -Zakhariya (Zechariah) 3:8 “Then speak to him saying, “Thus says Adonai-Tzva’ot: Behold, a man whose Name is the Branch will branch out from his place and build the Temple of Adonai.” -Zakhariya (Zechariah) 6:12 TLV By using different Hebrew words each prophet describes the strength of the branch at different stages of His ministry. He said to them, “I Am, I Exist (ego eimi[G]).” (Ehyeh asher Ehyeh) [I have been Who I AM, I will be Who I AM, I AM Who I AM] By this statement Yeshua identifies as YHVH present within humanity and demonstrates power and authority over all things (Exodus 3:14; John 6:35; 8:58). As Yeshua speaks these words power goes out from Him and causes those who have come to take Him to stagger backward and fall to the ground. In Hebrew tradition the phrase “fall to the ground”, or “Strike to the ground” can refer to striking a person dead immediately, and is ascribed to God, who performs such acts via His angels, in particular Gabriel (Mighty One of God): "let the master of thoughts come, (the blessed God,) and take vengeance on you; immediately Gabriel came, והבטן בקרקע, "and struck them to the ground"; and they died immediately.'' -Rav Simeon Ben Shetakh [F. Bavliy. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2.] "if you transgress your father's command, immediately comes Gabriel, and "strikes to the ground".'' -Shemot Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 91. 2. Therefore, among the religious Jews represented there would have been great fear at the blowing down of those who approached Yeshua. This fear would have been equally present among the superstitious Roman soldiers who witnessed the event. Those who had come to arrest Him were made acutely aware that they would not be successful in their endeavour unless Yeshua allowed them to bind him. All power was in Yeshua’s hands. 8 Yeshua[H] answered, “I told you that I Am, I Exist (ego eimi[G]); so if you seek Me, let these go their way,” 9 to make full (pleroo[G]) the word (ho logos[G], hadavar[H]) which He spoke, “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” Yeshua declares “I AM” a second time but withholds the power which He had levelled at His pursuers in the first stating of His Divine nature. This is an act of mercy toward His jailors and a clear expression of His decision to lay down His life: Re: John 10:17. Note that Yeshua lays down His life of His own fruition and power. Neither the thief, nor the wolf, nor any other power is able to take the life of the Messiah except that He allows it. The giving of His life is entirely His decision. “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” A quoting of John 6:39 which makes an exception of Y’hudah [Judas Iscariot] (who himself chose not to be chosen [given]). 10 Shimon K’fa[H] (Simon [heard] Peter [rock]) then, having a short sword (machaira[G]), drew it and struck the high priest’s (archiereus[G], hakohen hagadol[H]) servant (doulos[G]), and cut off his right ear; and the servant’s (doulos[G]) name was Malchus[H]([kingly] alt. Malchut[H] [kingdom]). The so called synoptic gospel accounts of this event: Matthew 26:51-52; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50. John’s gospel is the only account to name both the perpetrator Peter and the victim Malchus. There are at least two reasons for this. First, John was known to the high priest [v.15-16] and his court and thus was probably personally acquainted with Malchus. Second, John loved and admired Peter’s tenacity and courage in seeking to physically defend Yeshua. John did not act in the same way, perhaps out of fear. 11 So Yeshua[H] said to K’fa[H] (Peter, rock) “Put the short sword (machaira[G]) into the sheath; should I not drink the cup (kos[H]) which the Father (ho Pater[G], Aviy[H]) has given Me?” “should I not drink the cup which the Father has given Me?” Fits with the account of Luke 22:42. The cup Yeshua must drink is the cup of God’s wrath against sin. This is the cup we sinners should drink from and yet He (the sinless One) chose to drink it on behalf of all who would receive His atoning work through death on a Roman cross and through His resurrection. “God made him who had no sin to be a sin offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” -2 Corinthians 5:21 “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” -Romans 5:9 NIV 12 So the 600-1000 strong cohort (speira[G], spiral) and the commander (chiliarchos[G]) and the servants of the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]), arrested Yeshua[H] and bound Him, The Greek “chiliarchos” translated “commander” refers to the Roman commander of a cohort of 1000 men. Thus, the Roman commander, the Jewish Temple guards and the religious leaders were jointly responsible for binding Yeshua. In short all present represented the major political and religious interests of both Jerusalem and the Roman Empire and therefore, were all equally culpable. It should be reiterated therefore, that Pilate was complicit in the arrest of Yeshua making His pretence at the subsequent trial all the more abhorrent. We further note that at approximately 33 years of age Yeshua had shown that He had power to prevent His arrest and yet allowed them to bind Him. This correlates to Isaac, who at the same age allowed Abraham to bind him for sacrifice (Ha Akeidah [The Binding] Bereishit [Genesis] 22). 13 and led Him to Chananyah[H] (Gracious Yah [God], alt. Annas[G], humble) first; for he was father-in-law of Kayafa[A] (Caiaphas, attractive: Yoseph Ben Caiaphas), who was high priest that year. John’s gospel alone tells of this preliminary hearing held before Annas (Chananyah) the father in law of the High Priest Caiaphas (Kayafa). Once again this makes sense given John’s relationship to the priestly class (v.15-16). “High priest that year” is an indication that something other than Torah commanded priesthood was being practiced. The high priest of the Torah must be a descendant of Aaron and would be high priest until his death. In the early first century C.E. the priesthood had been defiled by Roman influence and the greed of certain Jewish religious power brokers, thus there was an albeit tenuous political relationship between the Jewish authorities of the time and the Roman Empire via her governor in Judea. Annas had become high priest in 6 C.E. and reigned in that position until 15 C.E. In addition to Caiaphas many members of Annas’ family became high priest after him, including five of his sons. This was an apostate priesthood that existed in conjunction with Roman rule and was a desecration of the rightful priesthood of Israel. This in part is why Yeshua had set up His own Sanhedrin (Luke 10:1). Yeshua had confirmed the line of His priesthood (of all believers under Messiah) in His talmidim (disciples) as He ritually washed there feet during the Seder meal (John 13:4-17 see my article and note). Caiaphas (Kayafa) [A.K.A Yoseph Ben Caiaphas] was appointed (contrary to Torah law) by Roman governor Valerius Gratus and served under him from 18 C.E. to 26 C.E. He then served under Pontius Pilate from 26 C.E. to approximately 37 C.E. In order to maintain his position political ties and compromise would have been necessary. He was not a legitimate (according to Torah law) high priest. He was chairman of the Sanhedrin which was made up predominantly of Sadducees. Ultimately Caiaphas held the position of high priest at the behest of Rome, making Pilate’s complicity in the arrest of Yeshua undeniable. 14 Now Kayafa[A] (Caiaphas, attractive: Yoseph Ben Caiaphas) was the one who had advised the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of all the people (kol-ha’am[H]) [11:49-52]. 15 Shimon K’fa[H] (Simon [heard] Peter [rock]) was following Yeshua[H], and so was another disciple [the author John]. Now that disciple was known (gnostos[G]) to the high priest (haKohen hagadol[H]), and entered with Yeshua[H] into the courtyard of the high priest (haKohen hagadol[H]), God honoured the prophetic nature of the words spoken by Caiaphas (11:49-52) not because Caiaphas was a legitimate high priest but because the role of high priest was one of mediation and revelation to the people of Israel. In fact the legitimate line of Aaron seems to lead us to Yochanan the Immerser as a more likely candidate for a legitimate high priest. Regardless, Yeshua will be raised the Highest Priest of an everlasting priesthood that both precedes and supersedes the priesthood of Aaron. Verse 14 gives clear evidence in support of translating “Ioudaios” as “Jewish religious leaders or Judeans [in the sense of a sectarian noun]”. The text calls the nation of Israel (all Jews in the land) “the people” and explains that Kayafa (Caiaphas) had advised the Ioudaios (Jewish leaders) on behalf of all Jews Ioudaios (the people). Therefore, the word Ioudaios must be translated according to context and not in an arbitrary manner. The most obvious candidate for the unnamed disciple is the author Yochanan (John). Based on the inference of the text we can deduce that John was not only in relationship with some members of the Sanhedrin but was also known to the high priest personally. The fact that John was allowed entry based on his relationship to the priesthood and that he was afforded the right to gain entry for Peter (v.16) shows that there were those among the Sanhedrin and Pharisaic sect that remained sympathetic to Yeshua. As is so often the case this pretrial of Yeshua was subject to the loudest voices rather than the correct mode of Torah justice. It is very likely that many in the room disagreed with how Yeshua was treated. 16 but K’fa[H] (Peter) was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple [the author John], who was known (gnostos[G]) to the high priest (hakohen hagadol[H]), went out and spoke to the doorkeeper (thuroros[G]), and brought K’fa[H] (Peter) in. 17 Then the young girl (paidiske[G]) who kept the door (thuroros[G]) said to K’fa[H] (Peter), “You are not also one of this man’s disciples (talmidim[H]), are you?” He said, “I am not.” Many are quick to pass judgement on Peter for his denial, and of course it was to his shame, however, who among us would have confessed our allegiance to a man accused of capital crime while we stood among his many accusers and at the risk of losing our lives? Peter had just risked his life for Yeshua by cutting of the servant Malchus’s ear in the midst of close to 1000 Roman soldiers and 200 Temple servant guards and Pharisees, was this the act of a coward? Was John questioned? Did John make an effort to physically protect Yeshua? And yet we laud John and decry Peter. Nonsense! Both were righteous, both acted according to their roles. It is a mistake to presume that John’s gospel seeks to show Peter as a coward. To the contrary, John depicts his dear friend Peter in all the fullness of his humanity and with admiration. 18 Now the servants and the attendants were standing, having made a fire of coals, for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and K’fa[H] (Peter) was also with them, standing and warming himself. 19 The high priest (hakohen hagadol[H]) then questioned Yeshua[H] about His disciples (talmidim[H]), and about His teaching, doctrine, instruction (didache[G]). The pretrial that follows is illegal according to both Roman and Torah law. There were no legitimate witnesses as to a crime, the accused was not treated with respect or given an advocate, two or three corroborating witnesses were not presented and so on. That a man of such religious authority and political influence as Annas would conduct such a trial shows a lack of integrity and is an abhorrent misuse of power, compounded by the fact that Annas had recently been in the role of high priest and would surely influence Caiaphas in regard to Yeshua’s conviction at the hands of Pilate. 20 Yeshua[H] answered him, “I have spoken openly, unreservedly, without ambiguity (parrhesia[H]) to the world (ho kosmos[G], ha olam[H]); I always taught in the gathering places, the synagogue (sunagoge[G]) and in the house of the temple (ho hieron[G], beiyt hamikdash[H]), where all the Jews (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. 21 Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said.” Due to context we see that “Ioudaios” is used here to refer to all Jews (Israelis), this being an exception to its more regular usage as a reference to the Jewish religious leaders and or the Judean religious sect of first century Judaism. Yeshua shines a bright light on the illegitimacy of the pretrial and invokes Torah instruction with His answer. “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness.” -Shemot (Exodus) 23:1 A judge “must not commit unrighteousness!” -Vayikra (Lev.) 19:15 A judge “must not show favour to or be partial to a litigant!” -Vayikra (Lev.) 19:15 A judge “must not take vengeance or bear a grudge!” -Vayikra (Lev.) 19:18 22 When He had said this, one of the attendants standing nearby struck Yeshua[H], saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” 23 Yeshua[H] answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” Yeshua had not disrespected the authority (albeit illegitimate) of Annas, rather He had simply demanded that Torah law be followed and appropriate witnesses be presented in order to validate any accusations being levelled against Him. Note that the One Whose word had sent men reeling and falling to the ground less than 40 minutes prior nonetheless allows himself to be struck. “Like a lamb to the slaughter…” For the powerless man humility comes easy, but true humility is proved in the gentle response of a strong man. The striking of one who speaks the truth warrants a weighty fine according to Mishnaic law: The servant of the high priest who struck Yeshua should have been corrected by the Council, and made to pay the two hundred zuzim, fine required by Mishnaic law for such an offence, this fine could be substantially higher if the dignity of the person abused was deemed laudable. Perhaps in this case as much as 400 zuzim? (Mishnah Bava Kama, c. 8. sect. 6.) It is interesting to note that the Mishnaic fine due Peter for cutting a man’s ear was four hundred zuzim. (Mishnah. Bava Kama, c. 8, sect. 6.) Given Yeshua’s status the unpaid fine due His offender might be considered to cancel out Peter’s debt. 24 So Chananyah[H] (Gracious Yah [God], alt. Annas[G], humble) sent Him bound to Kayafa[A] (Caiaphas, attractive) the high priest (hakohen hagadol[H]). 25 Now Shimon K’fa[H] (Simon [heard] Peter [rock]) was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also of His disciples (talmidim[H]), are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” Interestingly Yochanan (John the gospel writer) doesn’t record the details of the trial before Caiaphas nor the subsequent meeting of the Sanhedrin the following morning. It seems that Yochanan is more interested in conveying the meta-narrative of Yeshua’s Divinity and redemptive purpose than he is in giving a blow by blow account. He is clearly aware that there are others who have recorded the detail of these events (Matthew 26:59-68, 27:1-2; Mark 14:55-65, 15:1; Luke 22:66-23:1) and is content with conveying the gospel according to the inspiration that the Holy Spirit has afforded him. It seems that Annas was at least partially convicted by Yeshua’s words. The act of sending Yeshua to Caiaphas places the responsibility of His conviction in the hands of another. However, like Pilate, Annas is complicit and will ultimately be held to account by God. Sadly the Talmud Bavliy outright lies concerning the events of Yeshua’s trial claiming that after Yeshua was found guilty, a herald went before him forty days declaring his crime, and signifying, that if anyone knew anything worthy in him, to come and declare it (Talmud Bavliy Sanhedrin, fol. 43. 1.). Ironic that this is written in the tractate “Sanhedrin”. This is an unqualified revisionist lie concerning the history of events surrounding Yeshua’s trial. Our rabbis should be ashamed for this false witness against our King Messiah! The polemic nature of their lie is palpable. Peter’s second denial comes as the trial of Yeshua begins to heat up and the stakes become clearer. This is a life and death moment in time for all associated with Yeshua. 26 One of the servants of the high priest (HaKohen Hagadol[H]), being a relative of the one whose ear K’fa[H] (Peter) cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” 27 K’fa[H] (Peter) then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed. The final denial by Peter comes in the face of direct confrontation by a witness to his act of defence in the garden of Gethsemane. One has great compassion for Peter at this point given the compounding of the accusations against him and the very real threat of death by association. The rooster crows according to Yeshua’s prophetic words (13:38). Note that Yochanan does not dwell on Peter’s denial. He simply records it as fulfilling the prophetic word of Yeshua. Peter is dear to Yochanan. 28 Then they led Yeshua[H] from Kayafa[A] (Caiaphas, attractive) into the Praetorium [praitōrion[G]] (Governor’s court room), and it was early, daybreak (proia[G]); and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, become ritually unclean (miaino[G]), but might eat the Pascha[G] (Paskha[A] Passover sacrifice). The ritual uncleanness or defilement mentioned here is not to do with Torah observance but with extrabiblical law that considered an observant Jew to be unclean after entering the home of a gentile. This is why Peter was given the vision of the heavenly cloth filled with all kinds of animals (Acts 10:28). "the dwelling houses of Gentiles", or idolaters, "are unclean" - Mishnah Oholot, c. 18. sect. 7. "if the collectors for the government (Romans) enter into a house to dwell in, all in the house are defiled.'' - Maimonides. Mishcab & Mosheb, c. 12. sect. 12. According to both the Mishnah and Yarhci it was unlawful to to rent out a house in Judea to a pagan or to assist in building a Basilica for them. The Basilica is explained to be a palace, in which judges sit to judge men. (Mishnah. Avoda Zara, c. 1. sect. 8; Yarchi & Bartenora in ib. sect. 7.) The “Paskha” or festival offering mentioned here is not the Passover meal of the previous evening but the Chagigah (festival sacrifice) made on the day of the Passover during the first century Temple period. Therefore, those who claim that the Seder meal in John’s gospel is not a Seder meal are in error based on a lack of understanding of first century Temple practice (Mishnah Pesachim 6:4 re. the eating of the Chagigah until the intervening night [15 Nisan]). As further evidence of my assertion: King Josiah is said to offer for the Passovers (plural) three thousand bullocks, and the priests three hundred oxen, and the Levites five hundred oxen (2 Chronicles 35:7). Yarchi interprets these as the peace offerings of the Chagigah (Festival offering), which in second book of Chronicles are called Passovers (plural). 1 Esdras 1:7-9 mentions three thousand calves, besides lambs, that Josiah gave for the Passover; and three hundred by some other persons, and seven hundred by others: Deuteronomy 16:2, is explained of the "Chagigah", in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Hieros. Pesacb. fol. 33. 1. Talmud Bavliy Pesachim, fol. 70. 2.) Therefore, besides the Passover lamb, other sacrifices were slain, "in the name of the Passover” (Mishnah Pesachim, c. 6. sect. 5.) The present text then is referring to the aforementioned Passover sacrifices which the observant first century Jewish men in question were to eat that day, and therefore were being careful not to defile themselves according to the Mishnah. It should also be noted, that all the seven days of the festival were called the Passover; and those who eat the matzot (unleavened bread), say: "Let everyone that is hungry, let him come and eat all that he needs, "and keep the Passover".'' - Haggadah Shel Pesach. p. 4. Ed. Rittangel. 29 Therefore Pilate (Pilatos[G], meaning: armed with a spear) went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” Knowing what we do about Pilate’s actions during his role as governor of Judea and the fact that a Roman cohort was sent to arrest Yeshua (this could not have happened without Pilate’s approval), it is extremely difficult to take Pilate’s words as a genuine enquiry. He clearly already knew what some of the religious leaders who opposed Yeshua wanted. Therefore, Pilate’s question is a deception. In short, Pilate is a fraud and is complicit in the plan to put Yeshua to death. Spotlight on Pilate Pilate had sought to offend and provoke the Jews from the outset. His modus operandi was to provoke and then decimate those whom he saw as the Jewish agitators in Roman occupied Israel. Josephus tells us that Pilate provoked both Jews and Samaritans to riot “in order to abolish Jewish laws,”. The gospel records Pilate mixing the blood of Galilean Jews with their sacrifices (Luke 13:1). This desecration alone was abhorrent but it was not the only action of its kind perpetrated by Pilate. (see appendix A. for more details of Pilate’s actions) 30 They answered and said to him, “If this Man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you.” The religious leaders and their adherents had no evidence of evil doing. This was a false and unsupportable claim. 31 So Pilate (Pilatos[G]) said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your Torah[H], law (nomos[G]).” The Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,” One must hold in a loud and sardonic guffaw (gut wrenching laugh) at the reading of this. Pilate, whose modus operandi was to seek to “abolish Jewish laws” (Josephus), says “Judge Him according to your Torah”. Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Pilate is a two faced hypocrite, a liar, and a hater of both the idea of a Jewish Messiah and the Jewish people as a whole. “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,” According to first century Roman law the Jewish leaders were not authorised to carry out the death penalty except in very rare cases. Therefore, because their false accusation concerned a crime for which they believed the Torah required capital punishment, they were seeking Pilate’s judgement and sentencing of Yeshua. Bottom line, without Pilate’s approval, tacit or otherwise, Yeshua could not be crucified. The washing of his hands would not be sufficient to clean the guilt of Pilate’s unrepentant soul. 32 to make full the word of Yeshua[H] which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die [John 3:14-15; 12:32]. 33 Therefore Pilate (Pilatos[G]) entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Yeshua[H] and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews (HaMelekh HaYehudim[H])?” Yeshua’s word prophesying the type of death He would die (John 3:13-15; 12:32) was significant in that He would not die by stoning, the Torah prescribed method of death for the crime of blasphemy (Vayikra [Lev.] 24:16). This was to fulfil the figure of the snake on the pole held up by Moses to offer a means of redemption to those Israelites suffering snake bites during a plague against their disobedience as they wandered the desert toward the land of Israel (Bamidbar [Num.] 21:8-9; John 3:14-15). We note that the previous events had taken place outside the Praetorium and that Pilate now brought Yeshua inside in order to talk to him away from the listening ears of the Jewish religious authorities. Pilate’s question is one that seeks to find grounds for an accusation of insurrection. Anyone claiming to be a king was in direct opposition to the Roman Emperor and was therefore subject to the death penalty. Pilate had already killed Galilean Jews for similar reason (Luke 13:1). It seems clear that Pilate saw killing Yeshua as a win, win. First, he would be putting down a possible Messianic insurrection and second he would gain a large political favour from the subservient Jewish religious authorities, making his job as governor much easier (at least for a time). Of course history tells us that he did not manage to restrain himself after Yeshua’s death, and was reported to the Emperor by the Samaritans whom he had sought to decimate on Mount Gerizim in 36 C.E. 34 Yeshua[H] answered, “Are you saying this from your own soul (men nafshakh[A], alt. on your own initiative), or did others tell you about Me?” 35 Pilate (Pilatos[G]) answered, “I am not a Jew (Ioudaios[G]), am I? Your own people (ethnos[G]) and the chief priests (archiereus[G], HaKohaniym[H]) delivered You to me; what have You done?” Yeshua knows Pilate’s motives and the influence the religious leaders have had upon him. By addressing Pilate’s own soul Yeshua’s question affords Pilate an opportunity to repent but Pilate does not take the opportunity to do so. Pilate’s reaction to Yeshua’s words is disingenuous, he lies to both Yeshua and himself. Pilate had okayed the sending of the cohort to assist the Jewish authorities in arresting Yeshua, therefore, he is lying in his pretence regarding the delivery of Yeshua by the chief priests. Notice that Pilate says “your people”. Pilate’s character as exhibited in the history of his actions as governor of Judea tells us that he detested the Jews, Yeshua being one of them. 36 Yeshua[H] answered, “My kingdom is not of this world (ho kosmos[G], haolam[H]). If My kingdom (malchutiy[H]) were of this world (ho kosmos[G], haolam[H]), then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]); but as it is, My kingdom (malchutiy[H]) is not from this place, not of this side (enteuthen[G]).” Yeshua is King of all and will reign over the renewed heavens and earth, a world devoid of sin. He is not saying that He is not King over this present world, rather He is saying that His Kingdom is not of (born of, seeded by) this sin affected world. His Kingdom is of the heavens, of God Himself. Yeshua will return to reign forever. Pilate was unable to comprehend Yeshua’s response because he was deeply rooted in a kingdom of this world (the temporary Roman kingdom). Note the Hebrew “Malchutiy” My Kingdom. It sounds familiar because it shares its root with the name of the servant of the high priest “Malchus” kingdom. The temporal and fallen kingdom of Malchus (representing the apostate priesthood. A kingdom of idolatry) was deaf to the Word of Yeshua and His Kingdom everlasting. One Jewish commentator agrees that the Messiah is not of this world: "the Messiah is separated from the world, because he is absolutely intellectual; but the world is corporeal; how then should the Messiah be in this world, when the world is corporeal, and ענין המשיח הוא אלהי לא גשמי, "the business of the Messiah is divine, and not corporeal?" - Rav Y’hudah Bezaleel Nizeach Israel, fol. 48. 37 Therefore Pilate (Pilatos[G]) said to Him, “So You are a king?” Yeshua[H] answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into this world (ho kosmos[G], haolam[H]), to testify, bear witness (martureo[G]) to the immutable truth (aletheia[G], haEmet[H]). Everyone who is of the immutable truth (aletheia[G], haEmet[H]) hears in My voice (phone[G], bekoliy[H]).” “So you are a king” Pilate is hoping to confirm a legitimate reason to put Yeshua to death. Yeshua holds Pilate accountable for his assertion “You say I am a King.” Then Yeshua proves Pilate with the words “Everyone who is of the immutable truth hears in My voice.” And Pilate confirms his true nature by saying, “What is Truth?” 38 Pilate (Pilatos[G]) said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]) and said to them, “I find no reason to punish Him. This performance places Pilate in the ultimate position of power. He has assured himself that he has a legitimate reason to kill Yeshua based on Roman law concerning insurrection and at the same time knows he can achieve this by passing the buck onto the Jewish religious authorities thus killing two birds with one stone. Therefore, Pilate is lying when he says “I find no reason to punish Him”. Pilate had sought the reason by asking that specific question concerning Yeshua’s Kingship. The Talmud asks the same question Pilate has asked but gives an authoritative answer: "What is truth?" and the answer is “the living God, and the King of the World!” - Talmud Hieros Sanhedrin, fol. 18. 1. Therefore, the better question is “Who is Truth”. God defines Truth and truth reflects the character of God. 39 But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Pesach[H] (Passover); do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews (HaMelekh HaYehudim[H])?” This next question of Pilate which is posed to some of the Jewish religious leaders is insidious, duplicitous, he knows that the Jewish religious authorities are already enraged at the idea that Yeshua might be the King of the Jews. Added to this is the specific inference “King of the Jewish religious leaders, the Judean sect Ioudaios”. Pilate is intentionally rubbing their noses in it and provoking the result he wants. He knows that by using this title he will bait the Jewish religious authorities into choosing someone other than Yeshua to set free according to the governor’s Passover concession. Bear in mind that there were not more than a thousand Jews present alongside the Roman cohort and Praetorium staff. By far the majority of Jews in Israel at the time were opposed to the political manipulation of the religious leaders and their plan to put Yeshua to death. The majority of Jews at the time (as testified to by the gospel narratives) if they were not certain that Yeshua was the promised Messiah, they were at least convinced He was Elijah, or the prophet Moses spoke of, or one of the other prophets, risen and active in the land. They believed this based on the miraculous signs He worked and the righteous teaching He proclaimed concerning the reconciliation of the Kingdom. 40 So they cried out again, saying, “Not this Man, but Bar-abbas[A] (Covenant son of the father/daddy).” Now Bar-abbas[A] was a robber (lestes[G]). What a heart wrenching irony that the man set free is named Covenant Son of the Father? As well as dying as a substitution for all who would receive Him, Yeshua literally dies in place of a Jewish robber named Covenant Son of the Father. Copyright 2020 Yaakov Brown Appendix A. Philo of Alexandria, The embassy to Caligula 299-305 Pilate was an official who had been appointed prefect of Judaea. With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honouring Tiberius, he set up gilded shields in Herod's palace in the Holy City. They bore no figure and nothing else that was forbidden, but only the briefest possible inscription, which stated two things - the name of the dedicator and that of the person in whose honour the dedication was made. But when the Jews at large learnt of this action, which was indeed already widely known, they chose as their spokesmen the king's [Herod the Great] four sons, who enjoyed prestige and rank equal to that of kings, his other descendants, and their own officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation in the shape of the shields, and not to violate their native customs, which had hitherto been invariably preserved inviolate by kings and emperors alike. When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition, obstinately refused, they shouted: "Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause a war! Do not break the peace! Disrespect done to our ancient laws brings no honour to the emperor. Do not make Tiberius an excuse for insulting our nation. He does not want any of our traditions done away with. If you say that he does, show us some decree or letter or something of the sort, so that we may cease troubling you and appeal to our master by means of an embassy." This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behaviour, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects, but at the same time he was well aware of Tiberius' firmness on these matters. When the Jewish officials saw this, and realized that Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it, they wrote a letter to Tiberius, pleading their case as forcibly as they could. What words, what threats Tiberius uttered against Pilate when he read it! It would be superfluous to describe his anger, although he was not easily moved to anger, since his reaction speaks for itself. For immediately, without even waiting until the next day, he wrote to Pilate, reproaching and rebuking him a thousand times for his new-fangled audacity and telling him to remove the shields at once and have them taken from the capital to the coastal city of Caesarea [...], to be dedicated in the temple of Augustus. This was duly done. In this way both the honour of the emperor and the traditional policy regarding Jerusalem were alike preserved. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 2.169-174 Pilate, being sent by Tiberius as prefect to Judaea, introduced into Jerusalem by night and under cover the effigies of Caesar which are called standards. This proceeding, when day broke, aroused immense excitement among the Jews; those on the spot were in consternation, considering their laws to have been trampled under foot, as those laws permit no image to be erected in the city; while the indignation of the townspeople stirred the countryfolk, who flocked together in crowds. Hastening after Pilate to Caesarea, the Jews implored him to remove the standards from Jerusalem and to uphold the laws of their ancestors. When Pilate refused, they fell prostrate around his palace and for five whole days and nights remained motionless in that position. On the ensuing day Pilate took his seat on his tribunal in the great stadium and summoning the multitude, with the apparent intention of answering them, gave the arranged signal to his armed soldiers to surround the Jews. Finding themselves in a ring of troops, three deep, the Jews were struck dumb at this unexpected sight. Pilate, after threatening to cut them down, if they refused to admit Caesar's images, signalled to the soldiers to draw their swords. Thereupon the Jews, as by concerted action, flung themselves in a body on the ground, extended their necks, and exclaimed that they were ready rather to die than to transgress the law. Overcome with astonishment at such intense religious zeal, Pilate gave orders for the immediate removal of the standards from Jerusalem. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.55-59 Now Pilate, the prefect of Judaea, when he brought his army from Caesarea and removed it to winter quarters in Jerusalem, took a bold step in subversion of the Jewish practices, by introducing into the city the busts of the emperor that were attached to the military standards, for our law forbids the making of images. It was for this reason that the previous prefects, when they entered the city, used standards that had no such ornaments. Pilate was the first to bring the images into Jerusalem and set them up, doing it without the knowledge of the people, for he entered at night. But when the people discovered it, they went in a throng to Caesarea and for many days entreated him to take away the images. He refused to yield, since to do so would be an outrage to the emperor; however, since they did not cease entreating him, on the sixth day he secretly armed and placed his troops in position, while he himself came to the speaker's stand. This had been constructed in the stadium, which provided concealment for the army that lay in wait. When the Jews again engaged in supplication, at a pre-arranged signal he surrounded them with his soldiers and threatened to punish them at once with death if they did not put an end to their tumult and return to their own places. But they, casting themselves prostrate and baring their throats, declared that they had gladly welcomed death rather than make bold to transgress the wise provisions of the laws. Pilate, astonished at the strength of their devotion to the laws, straightway removed the images from Jerusalem and brought them back to Caesarea. Josephus on Pontius Pilate and the Aqueduct Riots Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 2.175-177 "On a later occasion he provoked a fresh uproar by expending upon the construction of an aqueduct the sacred treasure known as Corbonas; the water was brought from a distance of seventy kilometres. Indignant at this proceeding, the populace formed a ring round the tribunal of Pilate, then on a visit to Jerusalem, and besieged him with angry clamour. He, foreseeing the tumult, had interspersed among the crowd a troop of his soldiers, armed but disguised in civilian dress, with orders not to use their swords, but to beat any rioters with cudgels. He now from his tribunal gave the agreed signal. Large numbers of the Jews perished, some from the blows which they received, others trodden to death by their companions in the ensuing flight. Cowed by the fate of the victims, the multitude was reduced to silence." Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.60-62 "He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five kilometres. The Jews did not acquiesce in the operations that this involved; and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him, bidding him relinquish his promotion of such designs. Some too even hurled insults and abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in. He thereupon ordered a large number of soldiers to be dressed in Jewish garments, under which they carried clubs, and he sent them off this way and that, thus surrounding the Jews, whom he ordered to withdraw. When the Jews were in full torrent of abuse he gave his soldiers the prearranged signal. They, however, inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had ordered, punishing alike both those who were rioting and those who were not. But the Jews showed no faint-heartedness; and so, caught unarmed, as they were, by men delivering a prepared attack, many of them actually were slain on the spot, while some withdrew disabled by blows. Thus ended the uprising." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate © 2020 Yaakov Brown Showing favour to one person does not detract from one’s love for another. Only when we allow the sin affected world to influence our thoughts are we driven to become jealous of the favour bestowed on others. As true followers of Yeshua we should rejoice when we see brothers and sisters honoured, regardless of whether honour is bestowed on us. Introduction:
It’s not uncommon for English translations of the Biblical text to place headers at the beginning of sections of the Bible that have what the translators or compilers consider to be a consistent or common theme. The title used by the NASB to introduce verses 21 through 38 of chapter 13 of John’s Gospel is “JESUS PREDICTS HIS DEATH”. One can see why this title might have been chosen, and from our position within time and space we can understand the chronological value of it, however, it misrepresents both Yeshua and Hebrew prophecy. Hebrew prophecy is that which is spoken into time and space from outside of time and space where it is already perfected. Therefore, the Hebrew prophet remembers the future. Yeshua, God with us, does not predict His death, rather He memorializes it. He has already seen it completed outside of time and space. Nor do the disciples benefit from this so called “prediction” at the time, because they do not understand what He is referring to. With these things in mind, let’s allow God’s Spirit to open our hearts and minds afresh and impart a fuller understanding of the nature and purpose of what follows. As we examine the following verses keep in mind the connection between the washing of the disciples’ feet and the priesthood, and the admonition to walk in the all existing Light, as well as the reference to betrayal by a close friend. “It’s certain, it’s certain, I say to you, the one who receives whomever I send receives Me; and the one who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” -John 13:20 21 When Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) had said this, He became troubled, agitated (tarasso[G]) in the (ho[G]) Spirit (pneuma[G], b’ruacho[H]), and testified and said, “Amen[H] [G]Amen[H] [G] (B’emet[H], B’emet[H]), In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I (Aniy[H]) say to you, indeed, that one who comes out from (ex[G]) you will betray Me, give Me into the hands of another (paradidomi[G]).” 22 The disciples (talmidim[H]) began to discern, look (blepo[G]) between one another, at a loss, embarrassed, in doubt (aporeo[G]) to know which one He was speaking of. We note that the Greek text says “He became troubled in the Spirit” rather than in “His spirit” as many English translations render it (the Hebrew text also mistranslates it as b’ruacho in His spirit). The reality is that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and “his spirit” is effectively synonymous with “the Spirit”. Therefore, it’s important to note that the humanity of Yeshua is convergent with the Spirit of God and that the troubling of the Spirit is shared by the Father and the Son. This is why the author chose to say ho Pneuma “the Spirit”. The double “Amein” is once again establishing the certain outworking of God’s redemptive purpose even as it applies to allowing Satan to direct the betrayer Yehudah (Judas). We note that the betrayer “comes out from” meaning that he has determined to be separated from the disciples and their devotion to Yeshua. As one would expect the disciples are horrified at the thought that one of their own number might betray Yeshua. Thus, they were looking around the room trying to discern or perceive which of them might do such a thing. What is clear is that in spite of the questioning of Yochanan (the disciple whom Yeshua loved) and the dipping of the matzah which follows, none of the disciples seem to have any idea who is betraying Yeshua. In part this is because the meal is formal, and probably a Seder meal of some kind and therefore, has numerous dipping rituals that are shared among everybody making it difficult to determine which of the disciples Yeshua is referring to. 23 There was reclining on Yeshua’s[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) breast one of His disciples (talmidim[H]), whom Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) loved. 24 So Shimon Kefa[H] (Simon: hears; Peter: Rock) gestured to him (the disciple), and said to him, “Find out from Him and tell us who He’s speaking of.” “Reclining” Is an indication that this was a Pesach Seder meal. One of the four questions of the Pesach Seder, asked during the Magid (telling) and called Mah Nishtanah in Hebrew, asks “On all other nights we eat either sitting or reclining, why on this night do we eat only reclining?” We know from rabbinic literature that the reclining was done toward the left: "lying down on the back, is not called הסיבה, ‘lying down’; and lying on the right side, is not called lying down.'' -Mishnah Beracot, c. 6. sect. 6. "they used to eat lying along, leaning on the left side, their feet to the ground, and every man on a single couch.'' -Gloss in Talmud Bavliy Beracot, fol. 46. 2. & Bartenora in Mishnah Beracot, c. 6. sect. 6. "when there were but two couches, the principal person lay first, and the second to him above him; and when there were three, the principal person lay in the middle, the second to him above him, and the third below him; and if he would talk with him, he raised himself upright, and sitting upright he talked with him; that is, as the gloss explains it, if the principal person was desirous to talk with him that was second to him, he must raise himself up from his lying down, and sit upright; for all the white he is leaning, he cannot talk with him, because he that is second to him, is behind the head of the principal person, and the face of the principal person is turned to the other side; and it is better for the second to sit below him, that he may hear his words, whilst he is leaning.'' -Talmud Bavliy Beracot, fol. 46. 2. The “disciple whom Yeshua loved” is obviously Yochanan (John) the author of the Gospel, who is writing in the third person and thus does not refer to himself by name (Ref. John 19:26-27; 21:20). This does not negate Yeshua’s love for all, nor His love for His immediate retinue. Rather, it shows that while God loves all equally, Yeshua, Who is also fully human has some friends who are closer than others and favours them in certain ways. Showing favour to one person does not detract from one’s love for another. Only when we allow the sin affected world to influence our thoughts are we driven to become jealous of the favour bestowed on others. As true followers of Yeshua we should rejoice when we see brothers and sisters honoured, regardless of whether honour is bestowed on us. Notice that Kefa (Peter) must gesture to Yochanan (John) in order to get his attention, and uses further non-verbal signals to indicate what he would like Yochanan to ask Yeshua. This denotes a close friendship between Yochanan and Kefa, given that there is obviously a certain innate understanding between them concerning certain gestures and facial expressions. Nor is Kefa upset that Yochanan gets to sit closer to Yeshua, he simply wants to know what’s going on because he loves Yeshua and all the other disciples present with him. 25 Therefore, as he (the disciple whom Yeshua loved) was leaning back on Yeshua’s[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) breast, said to Him, “Lord (Kurios[G], Adonay[H]), who is it?” 26 Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) then answered, “It is he to whom I will give the dipped matzah (psomion[G]: small piece of bread).” So when He had dipped the matzah (psomion[G]: small piece of bread), He gave it to Yehudah[H] (Judah: praise) ben Shimon[H] (son of he hears) Ish Kariot[H] (a man of Keriot[H], A town in the south of Judah: Joshua 15:25). The Greek psomion means “small bit of bread”. From the Gospel accounts of Matthew 26:17, 23; Mark 14:1, 12, 20; and Luke 22:1, 7 we learn that the “small bit of bread” was unleavened bread, that is matzah: which is used in preparation for Pesach and eaten over the seven days of unleavened bread. This is yet another reason why it is highly likely that the meal in question is some form of pre-Passover Seder observance. It cannot be simply an ordinary meal as many Christian theologians insist because as we have previously discussed, the Greek deipnon denotes a formal meal (13:2). While Chapter 13 begins prior to Pesach proper, there is no way to determine a precise chronology following this except to say that these events took place before or on the eve of Passover at some point. This does not negate the possibility of a Seder, rather it informs us of the possibility that Passover practice in the first century during the Temple period may well have included multiple Seders and other varied traditions as pretext to the Temple Chagigah (a Pesach sacrificial practice of the first century Temple period). “He gave it to Yehudah” But not only to Yehudah. This practice of dipping and passing matzot included everyone at the table. The text does not say that Yeshua gave it only to Yehudah, nor does it say that He gave it first to Yehudah, just that He gave it to Yehudah after dipping it. The fact that all received this ritual food qualifies the confusion of the disciples as to what was happening even after the food was received by Yehudah and he left to betray Yeshua. It is obvious from the following verses that the disciples still had no idea that Yehudah would betray Yeshua. 27 After he had received the matzah (psomion[G]: small piece of bread) then entered (eiserchomai[G]) toward (eis[G]) him [Judas] the (ho[G]) Satan[H] (accuser, opposition). Therefore Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) said to him, “What you do, do quickly.” 28 Now no one of those reclining to dine (anakeimai[G]) knew (ginosko[G]) for what purpose He (Yeshua) had said this to him (Judas). We note that Satan did not enter into and possess Yehudah but that he “entered toward him”. God Who is just does not remove or allow the removal of a person’s freewill. Therefore, while Yehudah was influenced by and chose to be directed by Satan, he did so of his own freewill and not based on some kind of absolute possession of his will, mind, body, emotion, and being. If possession were the meaning, the text would both contradict the wealth of Scripture to the contrary and impugn the character of God. “13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” -Yaakov (James) 1:13-15 NIV As discussed previously, “no one of those reclining to dine knew” because the food was shared equally and from the same dipping bowl, in the same way hummus is shared on pita scooped from the same bowl. Yeshua offered dipped matzah to all present as part of the dining ritual. Therefore, every one of them was “one to whom” He gave dipped matzah. 29 For some were supposing, because Yehudah[H] (Judah: praise) had the money box (glossokomon[G]), that Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) was saying to him, “Buy the things we have need of for the festival (ha chag[H])”; or else, that he should give something to the poor. There are a number of arguments put forward against the idea that this meal is a Passover Seder or ritual meal of some kind. Some say that Halakhah prohibits financial transactions on the Sabbath or festivals and therefore, the disciples would not have thought Yehudah to be going to buy at Yeshua’s command because Yeshua would not command this on the Holy day. However, this is wrong for two reasons: first, oral law denying purchase of necessities at certain times was not yet codified, second, the text does not say that Yeshua instructed Yehudah to buy but that the disciples “supposed” that Yeshua had done so. Another argument against the idea that this is a Seder meal is that If Yehudah was thought to be purchasing supplies for the Passover, it was already too late to do so. However, Passover was the convergent point for the beginning of the days of unleavened bread which continued seven days and there were chol hamoed (intermediary days of the festival) on which Yehudah could have purchased goods for the remainder of the festival, had he been sent to do so. Therefore, again, this does not negate the possibility that this was a Passover Seder meal. On weighing the evidence for this being a Seder meal against the arguments against, and keeping in mind that the chronology of John’s Gospel is by no means systematic. It is my opinion that this was a Seder meal (either one of two or a single Seder prior to the day of the Chagigah offering). This fits best with the collected accounts of the Gospels and the time line of events leading up to Yeshua’s death and resurrection. 30 So after receiving the small piece of matzah Yehudah[H] (he) went out immediately; and it was night (v’laylah hayah[H]). 31 Therefore when he had gone out, Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) said, “Now is the Son of Man (Ben-ha’Adam[H]) glorified, magnified, clothed with splendour (doxazo[G]), and the God (v’haElohiym[H]) is glorified, magnified, clothed with splendour (doxazo[G]) in Him; “And it was night” is the counterpoint to the all existing Light alluded to in the previous chapter. Yehudah had chosen to walk in darkness rather than to walk in the all existing light of Yeshua. “Now is the Son of Man glorified” Yeshua used the Messianic title prophesied by Daniel to indicate that by allowing Yehudah to leave Yeshua had set in place the final stages of His journey to glory. Also, in a very real sense the transcendent resurrected Messiah Yeshua had already died and raised to glory, and thus “Now” (outside of time and space) both He and the Father were glorified. This qualifies the concept of the eternal present. 32 if the God is (Ho Theos[G], Ha Elohiym[H]) glorified, magnified, clothed with splendour (doxazo[G]) in Him, God (Ho Theos[G], Ha Elohiym[H]) will also glorify, magnify, clothe with splendour (doxazo[G]) Him in Himself, and will glorify, magnify, clothe with splendour (doxazo[G]) Him immediately. 33 Little children (Teknion[G], mikron[G], Banay hay’kariym[H]), I am with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and as I said to the Jewish religious leaders, Judeans (Ioudaios[G], Yehudiym[H]), now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’ “Banay hay’kariym” is a term of endearment, as if speaking to one’s own precious progeny. Yeshua speaks as a Father to His disciples, because He speaks of the Father and the Father is echad with Yeshua. Elsewhere Yeshua says, “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father”(John 14:9). 34 A new (kainos[G]) injunction, command, mitzvah[H] (entole[G]) I give to you, that you entirely love (agapao[G], t’eihavu[H]) one another, even as I have entirely loved (agapao[G], ahavtiy[H]) you, that you also entirely love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples (talmidim[H]), if you have love (agapao[G], te’ehavun[H]) for one another.” Some have said that this is not a new command. After all HaShem has said “Love your neighbour as yourself” Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:18. However, the context, source and application of Yeshua’s mitzvah (command) is unique and truly “new” in every sense of the word. Note that Yeshua is speaking to His disciples, who are now ritually washed as priests. While this command can be said to apply to all believers by extension, it does not in its original context apply to anyone other than the Jewish disciples of Yeshua present at the meal. This mitzvah, unlike the command to love one’s neighbour (which means that one should love all human beings), refers specifically to the love between disciples of Yeshua. Therefore, if it is to be applied by extension to the body of believers it must be applied as the love of one believer for another believer. Additionally it is qualified by the phrase “as I have entirely loved you”. No human being can love as Yeshua does unless that person is filled with the Spirit of Yeshua. Therefore, in order for the disciples to obey Yeshua’s mitzvah they will need to be filled with the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Of course that is exactly what happens at the subsequent Shavuot (Pentecost). Only when the disciples of Yeshua are filled with His Spirit will “all human beings know” that they are His disciples, and the same is true of us. Far too many believing communities neglect love for one another in favour of loving and helping those outside the community. The great irony is that Yeshua teaches that only by loving one another will the Gospel spread. In contradiction to Yeshua’s teaching we seek to love and do good for unbelievers at the expense of the love and good of our believing brothers and sisters and in doing so we fail to see the spread of the Gospel. Rather than allow our love for one another to overflow into the community we instead go into the wider unbelieving community while our believing communities dwindle, diminish and cease to exist. Therefore, in contradiction to Yeshua’s teaching we snuff out the Light of the Gospel in our communities, leaving them in darkness. If we desire to be effective in loving the unsaved we must first be effective in loving one another and that is only possible by the power of the Living Messiah in us, the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit). For He has said “Entirely love one another, even as I have entirely loved you”! 36 Shimon Kefa[H] (Simon: hears; Peter: Rock) said to Him, “Lord “(Kurios[G], Adonay[H]), where are You going?” Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) answered, “Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later.” Yeshua is going to His death, resurrection, ascension, a place that Kefa (Peter) cannot follow Him to yet. But Kefa will follow Yeshua later. Church tradition says that Kefa was crucified upside down for his faith in Yeshua, refusing to be crucified upright because his Messiah Who was greater than he was crucified that way. 37 Kefa[H] (Peter: Rock) said to Him, “Lord “(Kurios[G], Adonay[H]), why can’t I follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.” Kefa often gets a bad rap. He is a man of excitable passion and true faith, at times presumptuous and rash but none the less devout and genuine. When Kefa said this he meant it with all his heart. We should be so bold. 38 Yeshua[H A] (YHVH Saves, Joshua) answered, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Amen[H] [G]Amen[H] [G] (B’emet[H], B’emet[H]), In truth, In truth, It’s certain, it’s certain, I (Aniy[H]) say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times. Yeshua, knowing the end from the beginning and in the emotion and turmoil of His humanity is perhaps hurt by Kefa’s rash proclamation. I hear Yeshua’s words in response said with a sad resolve and without malice, “Will you really lay down your life for Me? Oh Kefa, it is an immutable fact that you will deny me three times while I’m on trial, all before the cock crows at the dawn of the new day. I’ve already seen it happen.” (Author’s paraphrase) © Yaakov Brown 2020 |
Yaakov BrownFounder of the Beth Melekh International Messiah Following Jewish Community, Archives
February 2024
|