Teaching kids

[Elizabeth]

This is an uncomfortable topic, but it has come up for me when reading the Bible with my kids a couple of times and I think it needs to be told.

When I was a child, I remember having an aversive feeling about the word "Jew". Praise G-d He got me through it, and kept my heart open enough to learn better.

However, now as I read the Bible with my kids, I cringe at the way the phrase "The Jews" comes across to my kids.  I almost see my own self in them and feel like I need to protect them. I try to explain it to them as best I can.  I typically say that everyone in the passage was Jewish and try to make a distinction based on what was actually happening instead of what it sounds like.  I have yet to feel I have done an adequate job. Honestly, I am just now gaining some context for these passages, so it leaves me with little to give them.

As a child. I knew no Jewish people and had no reason at all in my daily life to have such a notion. This was nothing I was ever taught as it was not even in my realm of my life or thinking.  I didn't know what it meant to be Jewish or Gentile because there was no grounds for even having the concept.  Yet, the word "Jew" was somehow bad. 


As an adult, I could not understand where such a small child in these circumstances could get such a notion. I am ashamed of it, but at the same time I was only a child.  So it begs the question, where did I get it? How disturbing the whole thing is, but worse would be ignoring it because it makes me uncomfortable. Every time I hear Jewish people talk about a subtle underlying anti-semitism that the rest of the world doesn't seem to get, I think of how I felt about the word "Jew" as only a child. I was maybe in kindergarten when I felt this. It terrifies me at the same time it makes me so .

As I read the Bible with my kids, I think it may have had something to do with the way the phrase "the Jews" seems to be characterized in certain passages. I think I just needed to say this because it has been nagging at me, but suggestions and thoughts are appreciated. Evil is so sneaky. It makes me angry that little minds are such a target. I want to protect my kids. How can I explain these passages to them and give them enough understanding to hear clearly? 

[jimmie]

When I was growing up, I was often called “the little Jew” because I always asked for price breaks on items that I would buy. I ask my dad what they meant when they called me “the little Jew”. He said that they meant that I had a good mind for business like the Jews did. So I wore the badge with pride. Let’s not allow the enemy to define our words and terms. If the enemy uses the term “the Jew” in a derogatory manor, we can’t allow that to affect our actions or use of it. Some folks use God as a curse word. We cannot allow that to be the way we think of God.

[Elizabeth]

Oct 30, 2015 7:09:52 GMT -8 jimmie said:

When I was growing up, I was often called “the little Jew” because I always asked for price breaks on items that I would buy. I ask my dad what they meant when they called me “the little Jew”. He said that they meant that I had a good mind for business like the Jews did. So I wore the badge with pride. Let’s not allow the enemy to define our words and terms. If the enemy uses the term “the Jew” in a derogatory manor, we can’t allow that to affect our actions or use of it. Some folks use God as a curse word. We cannot allow that to be the way we think of God.

Of course, agreed! I just don't know where I got this from except in the way it can come across in certain Bible passages, which I have noticed as reading with my kids. Sometimes the distinctions being made are not reflected in what the hearer hears. I worry about what they understand based in children's limited context, and don't know how to explain it to them.

I didn't hear phrases like you referred to as a child, but sounds like your dad handled it well for you.

[jimmie]

Could you share a few of the Bible passages?

[Elizabeth]

I will. I just need to have time to sit down and look for some examples. It just happens on occasion as I am reading to my kids. I should have looked some up before posting.

[Elizabeth]

I think a clear example of what I am trying to explain is in John 19. Yeshua is before Pilate and in 19:7 it says,

The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die...."

Now as Messianic adults we work to understand based on context, but what does that sound like and how do you explain it to kids?

Whatever I say always feels so inadequate compared to the tone. I am really concerned about what it sounds like to my kids sometimes, and I always feel like I haven't done enough to clarify things on their level when this type of thing comes up. I often feel like all I have done is drawn more attention to it.

[jimmie]

Doesn't the same thing happen when you correct your child when he has done something wrong. Example: "Bob, that toy is not yours. Give it back." You are not telling Bob he is always an evil person. Rather you are tilling him that his present action is wrong.

[Elizabeth]

I dont know just sticks out to me somehow. I think there is the potential for a tone to come across, especially to children, in the absence of truthful context and adult guidance. I think it may have influenced my perception as a child because the only place I heard anything about Jews was from the Bible.

[alon]

Elizabeth is absolutely correct. The New Testament has been extensively tampered with, redacted and rewritten to reflect negatively on the Jews. First off, as early as the 2nd cen CE Marcion was boasting that other men had rewritten parts of the encyclical texts, so he did too. There are over 5700 Greek source documents and fragments that are used to give us our "New Testament." There is some disagreement in most. The Greek is a translation from either Hebrew originals or copies in Aramaic. In many cases the tone was transliterated to reflect badly towards the Jews that the church fathers so hated. One good example:

Galatians 2:11-14 (ESV) Paul Opposes Peter But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

It is highly unlikely that Rav Sha'ul publically dressed down Peter like this. First off, it is extremely poor leadership to do so. But more important, if he had he would likely have been killed. Remember that these were Jews who had been persecuted and driven from their homes to distant lands. One of the chief persecutors up until just recently had been this very Sha'ul who was with them now! It is likely that family or friends of some of these people had been killed on Sha'uls orders. They would have been extremely wary of him. And death or bodily harm aside, Rav Sha'ul would not have wanted to come across so haughty and overbearing to them.

Furthermore, Peter was no ordinary person. His correct name was Shim'on Bar Yona, and he is the one Yeshua praised for his faith/trust in Mat 16:18. He and his brother Andrew were chosen as apostles by Yeshua from the first. Rav Sha'ul was a relative newcomer. He is thought to have authored or contributed to the books of Mark, Acts, and 1st and 2nd Peter. A fisherman, Luke 5:3 states he owned his own boat. This means he was an educated man and a businessman, just like fisherman/boat owners are today. As a working fisherman he would have been strong enough to be physically intimidating to the more genteel Paul as well. He had preached at Pentecost. So this was no wannabe Sha'ul was addressing. In fact, at that time Rav Sha'ul would have been under the authority of Peter, not the other way around.

Yet "Paul" is presented here as harshly upbraiding "Peter." I would suggest that the Greek source documents selected may have been the ones which the King James English translators (and earlier and later ones too) selected for their harshness of tone; and maybe even translated them a little harsher. Remember that the Jews were being persecuted and expelled in England at the time of the KJV's writing and before. Couldn't show those Jews in a good light in our Bibles when we are doing that, now could we?

Dan C

Sources: my wife's Moody Bible courses, Rav S, my father ... and the Bible, where the truth still resides despite man's attempts to tamper with it. But good call on the tone so often misrepresented in the NT there Elizabeth

[lou]

Orthodox Jewish Bible Yochanan 19:7 In reply, those of Yehudah said, We have a and, according to the , he must die [VAYIKRA 24:16], because he made himself to be the Ben HaElohim..... In other language studies it says Judeans. I see this as a word marking a region not a religious group.

[alon]

Here is another one from a post I was putting up elsewhere:

John 5:8-10 (ESV) Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked. Now that day was the Sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.”
Footnotes: a.John 5:10 The Greek word Ioudaioi refers specifically here to Jewish religious leaders, and others under their influence, who opposed Jesus in that time;

Here we have one of the blatantly anti-Semitic translations in most English Bibles. There was no law saying you cannot carry something on Shabbat. This was one of the ridiculous fences being put on people by Pharasaic Rabbis at the time. Anti-Semites take verses like this and use them to show how evil the Jews were, when we are talking about some of the leadership only. Read on:

John 5:11 (ESV) But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’”

Here we see evidence of this when an average Jew, the one who was healed, corrects his Rabbinical accusers. He is saying "That Rabbi, the one with the great healing powers; he told me to do it."

Earlier translations, like the KJV, just said "the Jews," and later translators who are so steeped in this kind of catholic doctrine just kept translating it this way. They know it is wrong, because they put it in their footnotes. However over and over again our translators beat it into our brains "the Jews!" So unless we are looking for it and aware the effects, we, like the translators, can become such entrenched anti-Semites that we don't even realize it.

Elizabeth, I would suggest getting a good, understandable translation like the English Standard Version. It is also very honest, putting a lot of these inconsistencies in their footnotes. Then be sure to read those footnotes when reading to kids- or for yourself. They are enlightening.

Dan C

[jimmie]

Judges 4:1 And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, when Ehud was dead.
Elizabeth, does the above scripture cause you to have averse feelings about “the children of Israel”? Would you be concerned about the tone of the scripture while reading it with your children? Does it convey a bad characterization of “the children of Israel? Would you draw your children’s attention to the verse to explain away the bad light that “the children of Israel” are being portrayed in?

alon, has the Old Testament been extensively tampered with, redacted and rewritten to reflect negatively on “the children of Israel”?
You sir paint a very dim picture of the Jews yourself by implying that they would kill Paul for publicly correcting Peter.
Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
Was Peter an educated man and a businessman? The thing that set Peter apart was the fact that he had been with Jesus.

[alon]

Nov 6, 2015 11:10:33 GMT -8 jimmie said:

Judges 4:1 And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, when Ehud was dead.
Elizabeth, does the above scripture cause you to have averse feelings about “the children of Israel”? Would you be concerned about the tone of the scripture while reading it with your children? Does it convey a bad characterization of “the children of Israel? Would you draw your children’s attention to the verse to explain away the bad light that “the children of Israel” are being portrayed in?

There is a huge difference in showing where the children of Israel disobeyed and were punished for it, and having an entire section which trains children to be anti-Semeitic by always casting them in a negative light. Every child should be familiar with that relation between doing wrong and a temporary punishment. Every child also DOES know the concept of no matter what you do you are perceived as bad, sub standard, just because of who or what you are. The Old Testament teaches crime and consequences. The New Testament teaches prejudice.

alon, has the Old Testament been extensively tampered with, redacted and rewritten to reflect negatively on “the children of Israel”?
You sir paint a very dim picture of the Jews yourself by implying that they would kill Paul for publicly correcting Peter.

There's been some tampering over the centuries, yes. But not nearly as much by a long shot in the 3/4 of the Bible which makes up the Old Testament as there was in the New. And this includes the Septuagent debacle.

I see no dim picture in pointing out the cultural practices of the time. And Rav Sha'ul may have come to them highly recommended, but he had been killing their families, friends and brother Meshiachim with gusto until just recently. Had the Rav come across as he is presented in those redacted verses many would have become suspicious that he was there to sell them out. In order to protect their families yes, they would have killed "Paul." I taught my boys that it is their responsibility to kill if necessary to protect their families. I even taught them how to do it legally; what to say and what not to say when they deal with the police. They started learning all this when they were still young enough that I had to help them hold the gun to shoot it.

But again, children should know the difference in these things for which we and our antagonist make as choices which may have consequences; and prejudice which cannot be erased or changed, just lived with.

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
Was Peter an educated man and a businessman? The thing that set Peter apart was the fact that he had been with Jesus.

It says they perceived that Peter and John were unlearned, not that they were. Just simple fishermen, which is exactly how the catholic church wanted to show the Disciples. These rough, uneducated lugs who came up against the educated Jews from Yerusalem. It's just not fair how these JEWS treated the "new Christians." See how evil the Jews are? This was the Greek view when the translators took it from Hebrew to Greek in the first place, and certainly the view of the early church fathers. So they may have changed things just a bit. The problem is these were Jewish fishermen, and your schools lied to you when they said it was the Greeks who first instituted universal education for all kids. That honor went to the Jews, who had been doing this centuries before Greece was a nation. They continue to this day, as wherever there is a synagogue, there is a yeshiva. As boat owners, to survive these men would have had extra training in business, accounting, and marketing.

Many unremarkable men had been with Jesus; multitudes even. One man, Judas, was remarkable only for betraying Him. No, what made these men remarkable is that Rabbis of that time chose their own close students. A strong, knowledgeable Rabbi like Yeshua would have had His pick of the best and brightest. He didn't choose any dummies, since they had a lot to learn and a short time in which to learn it.

Dan C

[jimmie]

Perceive to become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially by seeing or hearing.

I Cor. 1:20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The New Testament is as much anti-Greek as it is anti-Jew. Jesus was killed by a joint effort between the Jews and Romans (Greeks). Paul was beaten and stoned by Jews and Greeks. I don't see why showing where the children of Israel disobeyed and were punished is different than showing were the Jews disobeyed and are going to be punished. Both are just showing the cultural practices of the time. When Israel repents they are saved. When Jews repent they are saved. It is the same story in both testaments.

By the way, as the facts stand right now there are no extant Hebrew manuscripts that predate the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. You cannot prove your assertion that the New Testament was written in Hebrew first. And who made the Septuagint debacle that you speak of? It most certainly was not christians as that translation into Greek from Hebrew was made before Christ. The Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek in an effort to call those who had fallen into Hellenization to repentance.

[alon]

jimmie said:

Perceive to become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially by seeing or hearing.

What you thus learn is entirely dependent on your thoroughness in gathering data, what data there was to gather, how well you process that data, and whether or not your preconceptions cloud your judgment. So they can look at a bunch of rough, smelly fishermen and say “they only do that because they are ignorant, uneducated men” because, “as we all know,” if they were educated they’d have gotten easier jobs. Your definition, while true, tells us methodology, not accuracy. See, you perceived you had me on this point, while I perceived that you tanked it big time. Same point; vastly different perceptions.

1 Corinthians 1:20-24 (ESV) Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

The New Testament is as much anti-Greek as it is anti-Jew. …

In its original form the NT wasn’t anti-anything except sin. How many times have I said here that even in its rewritten form God’s truth still shines through? In places like the one you just quoted (out of the context of this topic) it is easily seen. This verse says nothing against either Jew nor Greek. It speaks of the different stumbling blocks to acceptance of Yeshua each group faces. It also speaks to the real problem in both- they each lean on their own wisdom, refusing to see the things of God. So we have here a fallacy of relevance.

… Jesus was killed by a joint effort between the Jews and Romans (Greeks). Paul was beaten and stoned by Jews and Greeks. I don't see why showing where the children of Israel disobeyed and were punished is different than showing were the Jews disobeyed and are going to be punished. Both are just showing the cultural practices of the time. When Israel repents they are saved. When Jews repent they are saved. It is the same story in both testaments.

These things, while true, are again irrelevant. They are history; we are talking about presentation. And over and over again we are told in ways we’ve demonstrated the Jews are painted with an evil brush. That the historical and cultural facts were not taken out does not answer the examples we’ve given where Jews were presented in a negative light.

By the way, as the facts stand right now there are no extant Hebrew manuscripts that predate the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. You cannot prove your assertion that the New Testament was written in Hebrew first.

This has been discussed many times here before, and I have given the reasons I think it was written in Hebrew. You chose not to argue the point on those threads dedicated to the topic; choosing instead to snipe at it from the cover of threads whose topics are about other things where a major debate on language would be a hijack. If you have a problem with this, go find one of those threads and make your case. Otherwise I believe it was written in Hebrew; you do not. Fine. You also believe the KJV to be the most reliable and readable Biblical text- want to argue that every time? Instead, how about I just keep printing a more accurate and readable version of your scriptures without comment? Or not … I could snipe at the KJV all day with one hand and defend a Hebrew NT with the other and not break a sweat.

And who made the Septuagint debacle that you speak of? It most certainly was not christians as that translation into Greek from Hebrew was made before Christ. The Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek in an effort to call those who had fallen into Hellenization to repentance.

I never said nor implied that Christians wrote the Septuagint. That accusation smacks of pettiness and desperation. And it was a debacle because the Jews should have learned Hebrew like all their other fellow Jews in dispersion. Having that translation, while it does point out later intentional errors like translating ekklesia as an assembly or synagogue in the OT and as church in the NT; this may have given the idea to translate the encyclicals into Greek in the first place. Then the church fathers had an entirely Greek Bible.

I also find it interesting that you have ignored all discussion points put up here by others and tried a string of red herrings to take us off track. Sorry if that is a bit harsh; however in the absence of any real arguments all I am left with is to point out the logical fallacies you make.

Dan C