|
|
Post by alon on Aug 7, 2019 9:45:19 GMT -8
So really, we have no hope. I take this to mean that under this scheme, the remaining, rejoicing people living on earth with the Messiah for 400 years wouldn't avoid death.
Yes.
The next verses go on to describe the General Resurrection and Judgment.
Lopuhin saw that the surviving Eastern versions (Arabic, Ethiopic, Syriac) say "Messiah" and don't use the name "Jesus". So he was theorizing that the Eastern versions were correct, and that the Romans who translated the text into Latin "corrected" their version to say "Jesus".
When Lopuhin wrote that 4 Esdras has signs of the blindedness of the Jews, he was referring to how the document did not specify spiritual significance for the Messiah's death. He was interpreting 4 Esdras to mean that the divine and human Messiah would reveal himself, live 400 years, and then die with the rest of humanity. I think that Lopukhin was referring to the idea in the New Testament that the Jews (including Yeshua's disciples at first) lacked clear understanding about the atoning death of the Messiah. In the gospels, Yeshua has to open the disciples eyes about this topic. This is true. However these disciples were the ones who would carry the Good News to the nations (Gentiles as well as Jews around the Roman world). So if they didn't yet know, no one knew. Like most of Christianity, Lopuhin assumes there was this bunch of Christians that just magically sprang up knowing all things. But there were no Christians at the time; not until very late in the 1st cen and into the 2nd. And they were even more scattered in their theologies than the Jewisn sects were. Not untl the mid 4th cen were they all brought under the rule of Constantine and more or less corralled into one cohesive religion.And they had absolutely no connection to the apostles or anything else Jewish or of the Nazarenes, who most of them hated passionately.
rakovsky said: (Question 3) How do you interpret the 400 years in 4 Esdras?I find the early Christian texts like 4 Esdras spiritually helpful and fascinating. Studying them brings out ideas and facts that the early Christians had or dealt with, but which I am not. Also, sometimes spiritual documents appear to have contradictions but actually do not, and figuring out whether they do or not is like solving a puzzle. Isaiah 53 is like this. There are puzzles like whether it refers to the Messiah, and seeming contradictions, like between the Messiah's kingly status, his being brought like a sacrificial animal and cut off, and then being rewarded by the Lord. Solving the puzzles can be fascinating and inspiring, as well as spiritually valuable. Isaiah 53 is most definately a Messianic prophecy. But some of the great debates in the Mishna were would He be Moshiach Ben Yoseph (the Suffering Servant) or Moshiach Ben Dovid (the Conquering King. Would there be 2 Messiah's? Could one be both? Yeshua answered that question for us. As God, He came once as Moshiach Ben Joseph, and He will return as the Conquering King, Moshiach Ben Dovid to claim His throne on earth and destroy His enemies.
Spiritual documents can show how a particular group at a particular time thought. So yes, hey have value in that respect. But documents like Esdras are so wrong I just don't have the time for them.You can rightly reply that 4 Esdras is not canon like Isaiah 53, so that we can't assume that it agrees with the ideas of Scripture. Lopuhin thought that it conflicted, but Binyukov didn't. Binyukov took the 400 years to refer to Christ's ministry and His death to refer to the crucifixion. So figuring this out, or trying to can be an interesting task considering that we are dealing with the apostolic-era texts. You can assign any meaning you want to anything said. Doesn't mean it is right, or what was intended. You have been doing a good job yourself addressing the issues. Thanks. But like I said, I don't study or read it. So take this into account.You are right that the plain image is a seal/emblem with authority or ownership. Something that came to my mind was the Second Temple-period hexagram seals found on ancient jars marked Jerusalem, like this:  But Jerusalem is not the same as Zion, which 4 Esdras references. Actually, Tzion and Yerushalayim are one and the same. Some call the entire land of Israel "Zion" as well. The 6 pointed star is the Magen Dovid, the shield of David; also thought to represent a Pomegranate. It is prominent in the Temple, so I suppose it could have been, or could just be called the "Seal of Jerusalem." I really don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 7, 2019 16:45:03 GMT -8
Your input about the Seal is relevant and interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 7, 2019 19:58:01 GMT -8
I gave Question 4 (Could Ezra in real life have measured a blast of wind like Uriel challenged him to do?) maybe as a fun question, but you gave a fine answer. I read this like you did as Uriel giving Ezra the challenges in order to help illustrate for Ezra his own human limitations. Ezra was posing a challenging existential or spiritual question, asking why the heart is evil, and so Uriel replied with a challenge. It was, as you said, like God's answers to Job's challenging questions to which God replied with rhetorical questions showing Job's limitations.
Weighing fire seemed to be futile, because fire is a chemical reaction fusing materials with oxygen. So the chemical reaction doesn't seem measurable in terms of weight. But actually, it looks like modern science might try to give an answer:
But this is the weight of the burning gases in the fire, not necessarily the fire itself.
I took the challenge about measuring wind to be similar, ie. that the author took wind for some reason to be immeasurable. But amusingly, it seemed to me that this was a challenge, intended as insurmountable, that could actually have been addressed by Ezra with sails or windsockets. A blast or gust of wind is a wave of energy passing through gas or air. You might be able to measure the force or speed of a blast of wind with ancient tools. Weather vanes measured the direction of wind in ancient times. Since you could measure the speed and force of the wind, it seems that based on mathematics and physics principles that you could measure the quantity or mass of the air in the wind as well: In 50 BC the Greeks had weather vanes to measure wind direction, and apparently the Sumerians and ancient Mesopotamians had them as well. The first anemometers to measure the force of wind were recorded in the 15th century, according to Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 7, 2019 22:17:15 GMT -8
You'd have to go to the text in the original language to find out the term which was translated "Lord" when speaking to Uriel. ... Lord just means one in charge. If you give yourself over to demons, then they are your lords. Dan,
Regarding Question 5 (Is "Uriel" Christ, and if not, why does Ezra call him Lord), the best texts that we have are Latin and Syriac, and the Latin says "Dominus", meaning master, lord, sovereign (but not necessarily G-d). The modern Russian translation uses "Gospodin" (lord) in translating Ezra's addressing of Uriel, instead of "Gospod" (The Lord, ie. G-d). Scholars believe that the book was originally written in Hebrew. The Hebrew equivalent term is "Adon", meaning master. I think that in the TaNaKh, Adon can refer to either G-d or to human masters/lords.
Sure, like you said, Lord just means someone in charge. But as I understand it, one of the arguments that the Biblical writers considered Yeshua to be G-d is that they repeatedly called Him "Lord". What do you think then of this argument that the term "Lord" implies Yeshua's divinity?
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 8, 2019 0:46:54 GMT -8
You'd have to go to the text in the original language to find out the term which was translated "Lord" when speaking to Uriel. ... Lord just means one in charge. If you give yourself over to demons, then they are your lords. Dan,
Regarding Question 5 (Is "Uriel" Christ, and if not, why does Ezra call him Lord), the best texts that we have are Latin and Syriac, and the Latin says "Dominus", meaning master, lord, sovereign (but not necessarily G-d). The modern Russian translation uses "Gospodin" (lord) in translating Ezra's addressing of Uriel, instead of "Gospod" (The Lord, ie. G-d). Scholars believe that the book was originally written in Hebrew. The Hebrew equivalent term is "Adon", meaning master. I think that in the TaNaKh, Adon can refer to either G-d or to human masters/lords.
Sure, like you said, Lord just means someone in charge. But as I understand it, one of the arguments that the Biblical writers considered Yeshua to be G-d is that they repeatedly called Him "Lord". What do you think then of this argument that the term "Lord" implies Yeshua's divinity?
Calling Him "Lord" instead of Rabbi elevated His status. One of the reasons many of the religious leaders disliked Yeshua was because He didn't defer to them. Christianity has always gotten this one wrong. Those examples where the "eeeevil Pharisees" questioned Yeshua were not because they wanted to trip Him up or to contend with Him. They were doing what they were supposed to do. Any time a Rabbi spoke with such authority, they were supposed to vet Him, listen to Him, and know what He was teaching. But even moreso when that Rabbi was the crown prince of Israel and the number one contender for the title Messiah! But who should vet God? Yeshua contended with them (not the other way around) because to allow that process would have been to come under the authority of the Sanhedrin in a spiritual sense. He was demonstrating they were under His authority, and this they did not understand and could not abide. He also contended with them because they were wrong about many things, which they being the Sanhedrin should have known better. And nothing grates on authority like being demonstrably wrong. So calling Him Lord instead of Rabbi was, I believe a kind of acknowledgement of this stature. And half of Israel or more calling Him that would have gotten the attention of that authority. Not all of them- always remember that. The Pharisees on the Sanhedrin did try to warn Yeshua just before He was taken, and after that it was all the Sadducees show. Still, it must have been difficult for many of them, probably very confusing. But "Lord" didn't just imply His divinity, if most even thought of that. After all, He never said He was God to the Jews. He did to the Woman at the Well, but she was a Samaritan. No, they were more saying He was "Large and in charge!" I'm sure some put it together when He did things only God could do- forgiving sin, healing men blind from birth, raising someone dead four days, and so on. But most were looking for Messiah, a man, and the idea He was also God may have taken a bit to sink in. But that He was spiritually superior to all the heads of all the different sects and even different Judaisms, and over the Sanhedrin itself ... Imagine you are a 1st cen Jew, with all the different sects and different views, all competing to say they are the right way. And even within the sects there is vicious infighting. You don't have a Bible. All you know is what the Rabbi and the readers of the  texts tell you every Shabbat. And you know what your parents taught you as a child. But that doesn't prepare you for all these ideas and the bitter fighting around you. And here is a man, a Rabbi who speaks with such authority! His words hold true, and He sorts it all out. He is a lightning rod, attracting men and women from all over the religious spectrum. THIS is a man with power in His words, even though they are often so soft. And He even puts the Sanhedrin in their place. I think you might call Him "Lord," acknowledging He is in charge as well! And maybe later you'll put it together He is Immanuel, God with us! But for now, it is just refreshing to follow someone with such a simple understanding and a light yoke. You eagerly follow His halacha, the way He says to walk out . He is Lord, the one in charge! Now don't confuse the term Lord with LORD, typically used in place of YHVH. The Jews still so reverence that name they won't speak it. And even early Christians apparently took this view, substituting LORD in all caps, meaning God Himself in all His majesty and glory! But in the TNK itself the Tetragramaton is used. Not so in the NT when referring to Yeshua. I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes from is people confusing the use of LORD and Lord. It's late and I'm tired, so I hope this makes sense. If not, ask ... but wait 'till I've had my coffee, please!  Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 8, 2019 8:28:00 GMT -8
OK, had my coffee. Here’s sort of a synopsis of the usages of lord or Lord in the New Testament.
The common word used for “Lord” is the Greek word kurios, but sometimes despotes is used:
According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kurios means:
1) He to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
1a) The possessor and disposer of a thing
1a1) The owner; one who has control of the person, the master
1a2) In the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
1b) A title of honor expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
1c) This title is given to: God, the Messiah
As always, context determines which definition applies, and that along with convention determines how it is spelled; also what the interpreter thinks is being conveyd:
Lord, lord, lords, Lord’s, lord’s, LORD, LORDS
Master, master, Masters, masters
Sir, sir
NASB
Owner, owners
Landowner
Rabboni
theos (God)
despothv (despotes- “lord” or “master”)
Cristov (Christos- Christ, Messiah)
Iesous (Jesus)
He, His, You – If the text used a pronoun, the NASB uses one of these pronouns.
Hebrew New Testament
(Note that this is a back-translation from Greek source documents, and so there is a possibility in errors both from the original Hebrew to Greek, and then from the Greek back to Hebrew translation processes)
YHWH- the Hebrew name of God
Adon, (adown) translated as lord/Lord
According to Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament, adon means: Lord, master, king; used of men as lord, master, king, governor, prince, prophet, husband.
Adonai (adonay) lord/Lord, often with various suffixes. According to Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament, adonai is an emphatic form of adon, used of men or of God. It is also the title LORD, spoken in place of YHVH in Jewish displays of reverence.
Elohim (Elohiym)- God
Yeshua (Yashua)- Jesus
Moshiach (Mashiyach)- Messiah, Heb equivalent of Grk Christos (the Christ)
I don't know if this helps the confusion any. Just be aware that every time you see the term "lord" it doesn't necessarily mean "God." Also be aware that even when the translators capitalized it, they were working from understandings passed down from the church fathers and the Catholic Church, both of which had agendas not necessarily connected to the truth. They hated the Jews, so getting inside the heads of a bunch of long dead 1st cen. Jews was not in the offing. Yeshua was and is God. But every single time any of the terms were used they did not have to mean God. Just something to think about.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 8, 2019 8:45:20 GMT -8
You'd need a mean velocity, and samples from all over the region which could be averaged. And even then you'd just have a good estimation, not an absolute measurement. Just sayin'. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 8, 2019 9:29:02 GMT -8
Dan, Good answer about the meaning of "Lord". To answer my own question 5, in the other literature of the era, like Enoch, Apocalypse of Peter, and 1 Esdras, Uriel is a known archangel, one of the main angels besides Gabriel and Michael. Uriel means flame or light of God and there is a theory that he is the unnamed angel of fire in Revelation. You made a good explanation that Lord/Adon/Dominus can mean master, and not necessarily G-d.
"Uriel" is not Christ / Yeshua, since they have different names, and because the angel refers to the Messiah as "my Son" in Chapter 7:28. There are places where in the TaNaKh G-d or His Word seem to be described as "angels", like in the meeting with Abraham, but they don't give G-d the names of specific angels like "Michael" or "Gabriel".
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 8, 2019 10:44:18 GMT -8
Dan, It looks like what is happening is that Ezra's prayer to G-d in the presence of the Most High becomes effectively a conversation between Him and G-d with the angel acting as a mediator relaying answers between Ezra and G-d, similar to what happens in Zechariah 1. This becomes clearer if you look over the participants in the exchange and the divine attributes used:
In Chapter 5, Ezra fasted 7 days as the angel Uriel commanded. Then Ezra speaks "in the presence of the Most High", asking why God scattered His people. (v. 22) An angel who had spoken with him on a previous night appears (presumably Uriel) and they have a dialogue in which Ezra speaks to "you", Ezra's "lord", the "creator", who is in charge of those alive at the end, and the angel gives answers about "my people". At the end of Chapter 5, Ezra asks: “I implore you, O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, show your servant through whom you will visit your creation.” The answer that Ezra receives from him in the beginning of the next chapter is that "At the beginning of the circle of the earth.... I planned these things, and they were made through me alone and not through another". Then later in Chapter 7:28-29, the angel refers to the Messiah as "my Son", a title normally referring to the Messiah as God's Son. Incidentally, this shows that the angel speaking must not be the Messiah, or else he wouldn't have called him "My Son".
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 8, 2019 10:56:16 GMT -8
I don’t take Esdras seriously at all, and really see no reason for studying it. You’ve obviously done a lot of work with it. But since it has such glaring problems and scriptural contradictions what’s the point? You may find it reassuring to know that with my thread questions I posted almost everything that I found problematic in the first century extraBiblical Jewish Christian (Nazarene) writings. They may seem like alot, but the total amount of text is pretty long. It took me several days to read 4 Esdras, but I am a slow reader. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 8, 2019 12:11:04 GMT -8
Dan, It looks like what is happening is that Ezra's prayer to G-d in the presence of the Most High becomes effectively a conversation between Him and G-d with the angel acting as a mediator relaying answers between Ezra and G-d, similar to what happens in Zechariah 1. This becomes clearer if you look over the participants in the exchange and the divine attributes used:
In Chapter 5, Ezra fasted 7 days as the angel Uriel commanded. Then Ezra speaks "in the presence of the Most High", asking why God scattered His people. (v. 22) An angel who had spoken with him on a previous night appears (presumably Uriel) and they have a dialogue in which Ezra speaks to "you", Ezra's "lord", the "creator", who is in charge of those alive at the end, and the angel gives answers about "my people". At the end of Chapter 5, Ezra asks: “I implore you, O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, show your servant through whom you will visit your creation.” The answer that Ezra receives from him in the beginning of the next chapter is that "At the beginning of the circle of the earth.... I planned these things, and they were made through me alone and not through another". Then later in Chapter 7:28-29, the angel refers to the Messiah as "my Son", a title normally referring to the Messiah as God's Son. Incidentally, this shows that the angel speaking must not be the Messiah, or else he wouldn't have called him "My Son".
It is important to keep i mind that since this is a much later pseudepigraphic work we are not actually talking about the prophet Ezra. Therefore if the author WAS talking to "angels," they were not from God. They were demonic imposters, and their "lord" would be the father of all lies. If the work is just a figment of the authors imagination then putting it out there as he did is STILL a lie! Not really. His speaking of the 400 yrs and we all die along with Yeshua proves the whole thing to be a lie. We as Meshiachim are in this for the truth, so we wouldn't accept any of these books as even holy writ, let alone scriptural. Just the possibility of demonic involvement makes the whole thing almost "untouchable!" Even you are only academically interested in it if I read you correctly. As my Logic Prof. would have said about such a text, with just the few flaws (relatively speaking) you found, this entire work "Sucketh in perpetuity!" Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 9, 2019 19:54:59 GMT -8
rakovsky said: (Question 6) In Chapter Seven (v.88-93), it says of the righteous: Well, apparently the righteous could see the punishment of the ungodly from Paradise. Maybe we’ll see them in the Olam Haba, the World to Come as well. I don’t know.Dan C Dan,
With Question 6, I want to get at a moral or philosophical issue of compassion for one's enemies. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man looked up and saw Lazarus with Abraham, and he talked with Abraham. So presumably Lazarus could look back down and see the rich man's suffering in Hades.
On the other hand, Psalm 58:10 goes further and has the righteous rejoicing, "The righteous will rejoice when they see they are avenged; they will wash their feet in the blood of the wicked." I guess you could say that the righteous rejoice in seeing their enemies' defeat in that it entails the victory of the righteous, or in that the enemies no longer persecute them. The Psalm doesn't specify that the righteous rejoice in the enemies' suffering itself. Maybe the same could be said about the idea in 4 Esdras that the righteous have rest in seeing their enemies' confusion and punishment.
It's more of a moral issue in seeing enemies' punishment that I am having trouble with. If you are supposed to be loving and forgiving towards one's enemies, it seems like you might even feel bad for them. Maybe Lazarus would want to help the rich man but couldn't due to the chasm. I don't mean to put you on the spot or "stick" you with any of my thread questions either.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 9, 2019 22:29:25 GMT -8
For Question 7 (the meaning of the seal of Zion), you are right that <<Some call the entire land of Israel "Zion">>. Can you say where you remember learning that "Tzion and Yerushalayim are one and the same", or maybe giving an example showing this?
The key point that you made I think was that a seal shows a mark of authority. It protects what it "seals".
In Chapter 6, the author used sealing as a metaphorical expression, rather than as referring to an official seal. There, the angel relays the Lord's expression: “At the beginning of the circle of the earth, ... before those who stored up treasures of faith were sealed— then I planned these things..."
In Chapter 10, Ezra complains of Israel's losses, like men going into Babylonian captivity. The losses would imply the loss of the metaphorical "seal" of Zion, that is, the Lord's spiritual or metaphorical "stamp" or "seal" or seal protecting Zion from its enemies like Babylon. In The First and Second Books of Esdras, Richard J. Coggins theorizes: "Possibly the 'seal of Zion' is to be understood as a mark of God's protection of Jerusalem which had been withdrawn."
Jacob Myers comments in his 1981 Anchor Bible translation of 2 Esdras:
Frank Zimmerman, in his article "Underlying Documents of IV Ezra", argued that "seal of Zion" was probably a mistranslation into Latin of the Hebrew word טבעה which could have different meanings depending on its vowel pointing. He writes:
I think that the Latin could be right though. Sure it sounds awkward without a necessary verb, but I notice that alot of these ancient documents have awkward wording at times. If Zion was unsealed from its honor, then it would have lost its seal amongst the other losses noted in the passage.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 9, 2019 23:09:21 GMT -8
rakovsky said: (Question 6) In Chapter Seven (v.88-93), it says of the righteous: Well, apparently the righteous could see the punishment of the ungodly from Paradise. Maybe we’ll see them in the Olam Haba, the World to Come as well. I don’t know.Dan C Dan,
With Question 6, I want to get at a moral or philosophical issue of compassion for one's enemies. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man looked up and saw Lazarus with Abraham, and he talked with Abraham. So presumably Lazarus could look back down and see the rich man's suffering in Hades.
On the other hand, Psalm 58:10 goes further and has the righteous rejoicing, "The righteous will rejoice when they see they are avenged; they will wash their feet in the blood of the wicked." I guess you could say that the righteous rejoice in seeing their enemies' defeat in that it entails the victory of the righteous, or in that the enemies no longer persecute them. The Psalm doesn't specify that the righteous rejoice in the enemies' suffering itself. Maybe the same could be said about the idea in 4 Esdras that the righteous have rest in seeing their enemies' confusion and punishment.
It's more of a moral issue in seeing enemies' punishment that I am having trouble with. If you are supposed to be loving and forgiving towards one's enemies, it seems like you might even feel bad for them. Maybe Lazarus would want to help the rich man but couldn't due to the chasm. I don't mean to put you on the spot or "stick" you with any of my thread questions either.
That’s actually a good question. You won’t mind if my answer is a bit long, will you?  Isaiah 52:7-12 (ESV)
How beautiful upon the mountains
are the feet of him who brings good news,
who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
who publishes salvation,
who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.”
The voice of your watchmen—they lift up their voice;
together they sing for joy;
for eye to eye they see
the return of the Lord to Zion.
Break forth together into singing,
you waste places of Jerusalem,
for the Lord has comforted his people;
he has redeemed Jerusalem.
The Lord has bared his holy arm
before the eyes of all the nations,
and all the ends of the earth shall see
the salvation of our God.
Depart, depart, go out from there;
touch no unclean thing;
go out from the midst of her; purify yourselves,
you who bear the vessels of the Lord.
For you shall not go out in haste,
and you shall not go in flight,
for the Lord will go before you,
and the God of Israel will be your rear guard.If you read the above verses closely, you may see, as we so often do in scripture, more than one meaning. It deals with the salvation of Israel, and with the salvation of the nations as well. And of course there is a personal salvific component. But let’s consider the basic, simple meaning. The language is military. It deals with one of the two overriding concerns of any ancient culture: agriculture (obviously not that) and war. Christianity takes this to mean Jesus return, but they seldom remember He will return as a warrior, avenging Himself and His people! Yes, it is a type or a description of after all the bloodshed at Har Meggidon. But like most scripture too it describes real events the people would have been familiar with. Whenever faced with invasion and their armies went out to oppose it, towards the end of the battle when the victor had all but been decided, messengers were sent out to the cities, towns, and encampments. If the battle was going badly, they needed time to either prepare their defenses in place or flee and hide. And so if it was victory, it was said “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news!” News of peace, happiness, salvation. Their Lord has redeemed them: He was with them in battle! And He is with them now. I think here we have a great example of the reasons for our rejoicing when evil is vanquished. We do not rejoice because hundreds, or even thousands are now in Hell. We don’t rejoice because children are fatherless or wives and mothers bereft. We do however rejoice that our own families are again safe, our lands and possessions secure. And most of all, we thank God because He was and is with us! Let’s look at some scripture on not rejoicing over the fate of your enemy: Proverbs 24:17 (ESV) Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles,
Ezekiel 18:23 (ESV) Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?
2 Peter 3:9 (ESV) The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
As God’s people, we should take His attitude towards our enemies. As a moral people, we are not just out for vengeance. Once we determine war is the solution, we are out to win. But we do not kill prisoners or non-combatants for no reason. They may suffer horribly and even be killed in our wars. But that is not the intent. Our intent is to take the enemies means and will to fight. That is how wars are won. Matthew 5:44-48 (ESV) But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.This is how we treat our enemies before they attack us, or even when he is attacking if the threat is not so severe as to warrant a counter attack. Israel models this daily, giving medical aid and refuge to Syrian refugees, even as Syria threatens war, and while busy killing each other they just can’t resist shooting rockets into Israel. They extend the hand of peace to all Muslims, even as they are being shot, stabbed, and driven down in their own streets by these same Muslims. They’ve given critical medical care to family members of high level Hamas members and other terrorists, only to have them denounce Israel as soon a the return gate closes behind them. To do less would to be killed by their own. But in this way, some of these people become friends. Romans 12:20 (ESV) To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Modern Christianity in teaching their “love only” doctrines of God has done a lot of damage! Your moral dilemma is evidence of this. “But, but. Jesus is love!” Didn’t stop Him from beating the fool out of the moneychangers and sacrifice salesmen, scattering their property. I imagine some of those animals are still running! God destroyed Sodom and ordered the Hebrews to kill everyone in the land they were given! But Lot didn’t dance because he survived. In fact, it was easy for his daughters to get him so drunk he lay with them! A man only drinks like that to “self medicate” for some psychological trauma. The Hebrews didn’t rejoice over everyone they had to kill. In fact, a few times they failed to do as they were told on that score. And there is no record of Jesus saying “Boy, look at ‘em run!” Now let’s look at some verses that say we should rejoice at the fate of the wicked. One that is almost always brought up is Prov 11:10, but with Christianities penchant for cherry picking they miss the next verse and so usually misinterpret it: Proverbs 11:10-11 (ESV)
When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices,
and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness.
By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted,
but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown.There is nothing wrong with rejoicing on the overthrow of the wicked. It is how we are saved from destruction and enslavement. Just remember to never cross the line. 2 Kings 11:20 (ESV) So all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet after Athaliah had been put to death with the sword at the king's house.
Athaliah was a wicked woman who had murdered the royal family and seized the throne for herself. Rejoicing because she was dead was not wrong to do: Proverbs 29:2 (ESV) When the righteous increase, the people rejoice,
but when the wicked rule, the people groan.But the absolute, all time favorite of hate-mongers as well as those wanting to discredit the Bible is Psalm 58:10, because it seems so gory. I spent some time looking at this in context (my favoritest way to look at scripture!), and it is a very interesting passage. So first off, concerning vs. 10, it is obvious the meaning here is you walk through a battlefield your feet will get bloody. It doesn’t mean they delight in that. Blood can be hard to wash off, and it will stink in a short time! Who wants that? Concerning vs. 9, my Bible’s notes says “The meaning of the Hebrew verse is uncertain.” I don’t think so. The metaphor is made clear when you see this Psalm as a chiasm- a form of Hebrew poetry where everything is mirrored, and the central idea is found in the central verse or line. Psalm 58 (ESV)
To the choirmaster: according to Do Not Destroy. A Miktam of David.
1 Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods?
Do you judge the children of man uprightly?
2 No, in your hearts you devise wrongs;
your hands deal out violence on earth.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent,
like the deaf adder that stops its ear,
5 so that it does not hear the voice of charmers
or of the cunning enchanter.
6 O God, break the teeth in their mouths;
tear out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord!
7 Let them vanish like water that runs away;
when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted.
8 Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime,
like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.
9 Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns,
whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!
10 The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 Mankind will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
surely there is a God who judges on earth.”According to the notes, a Mikhtam is an Epigrammatic Poem- a short, terse, often paradoxical poem expressing a single thought or observation. In Ancient Hebrew poetry, that about describes a chiasm- the figure of speech in which two or more clauses are related to each other through a reversal of structures in order to make a larger point; that is, the clauses display inverted parallelism. So let’s lay this out in its chiastic structure: Psalm 58 (NASB)Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods?
Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men?
No, in heart you work unrighteousness;
On earth you weigh out the violence of your hands.
The wicked are estranged from the womb;
These who speak lies go astray from birth.
They have venom like the venom of a serpent;
Like a deaf cobra that stops up its ear,
So that it does not hear the voice of charmers,
Or a skillful caster of spells.
O God, shatter their teeth in their mouth;
Break out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord.
Let them flow away like water that runs off;
When he aims his arrows, let them be as headless shafts.
Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along,
Like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun.
Before your pots can feel the fire of thorns
He will sweep them away with a whirlwind, the green and the burning alike.
The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
And men will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
Surely there is a God who judges on earth!”When you read the paired verses, looking at them as inverted, related but opposite ideas. The central verse is asking God to act on Israel’s behalf to overcome her enemies. Looking at it like this, their rejoicing is in the deliverance of the Lord, not in the destruction of the enemy. Dan C Note: It’s late (almost midnight), so your next question will have to wait until tomorrow. Laila tov (goodnight). Note: If you are not familiar with chiastic structure, the paired verses are indicated by the indents. That would be vss. 1 and 11, 2 and 10, 3 and 9, 4 and 8, 5 and 7, with vs. 6 being the central, or main point of the entire passage. Verses 1 and 11 are easiest here to see as related but opposite meanings within the chiasm. 1. Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods? Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men? 11. And men will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous; Surely there is a God who judges on earth!” Both speak of judgement, the first of gods (demons) and men who are not righteous in their judgements, and the last of the Lord God of Israel who will rightly reward the righteous. These are mirrored by the central verse, vs. 6. O God, shatter their teeth in their mouth; Break out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord. Here the Lord is asked to deliver His people. It is He who will nullify the weapons brought against Israel! It is the God who judges righteously who will determine the fates of nations in conflict, especially when one of them is Israel! |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 10, 2019 8:30:41 GMT -8
For Question 7 (the meaning of the seal of Zion), you are right that <<Some call the entire land of Israel "Zion">>. Can you say where you remember learning that "Tzion and Yerushalayim are one and the same", or maybe giving an example showing this?
The key point that you made I think was that a seal shows a mark of authority. It protects what it "seals".
Psalm 87:2-3 (ESV)
the Lord loves the gates of Zion
more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
Glorious things of you are spoken,
O city of God. SelahSo it can mean the city of Jerusalem. Psalm 2:6 (ESV)
“As for me, I have set my King
on Zion, my holy hill.”There are many verses calling the Temple Mount Har Tzion (Mt. Zion). Psalm 132:13 (ESV)
For the Lord has chosen Zion;
he has desired it for his dwelling place:The Temple itself may be referred to as Zion. Isaiah 40:9 (ESV)
Go on up to a high mountain,
O Zion, herald of good news; [Or O herald of good news to Zion]
lift up your voice with strength,
O Jerusalem, herald of good news; [Or O herald of good news to Jerusalem]
lift it up, fear not;
say to the cities of Judah,
“Behold your God!Note the above verse refers to both Mt. Zion and its city, Jerusalem. In the footnotes [bracketed], note once again the military terminology. And if you read the psalm looking at it with this in mind, you will clearly see how the Christian interpreters entirely missed the point! Zechariah 9:13 (ESV)
For I have bent Judah as my bow;
I have made Ephraim its arrow.
I will stir up your sons, O Zion,
against your sons, O Greece,
and wield you like a warrior's sword.It may also refer to the land, and by extension to the people of the land. That would be correct, at least biblically. It is in alignment with all I’ve pointed out militarily up to now. Again correct. The different meanings of ancient Hebrew words is due to context, not vowel pointing. Vowel points are a relatively new device, and no such equivalent existed before they were developed. Even today, native Hebrew speakers often read texts without the vowel points. There is also a cursive (more or less) form of writing Hebrew which does not use vowel points. Whenever any text is translated from one language to another there is a high likelihood of there being confusion. The more times it is translated, the more the confusion. Most Hebrew documents used by the Roman Church were translated into Greek first, then into Latin. Hence their great propensity for confusion. Dan C Just one point: I note the failure of Christian interpreters often in my writings. And fail they do; and often! However given their task of more transliterating meanings than simple translation I do have a lot of respect for the job most do. This is especially true of the two translations I most often use, the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard version. Their missing the point or getting it wrong is due mostly to their indoctrination of centuries of catholic (universal) understanding; the doctrines and interpretations of the church fathers. Most of the early fathers were unrepentant pagans who hated the Jews and anything Jewish. The majority of later fathers in both Catholicism (of all stripes) and Protestantism magnified this hatred. They would (almost) all rather have burned the local synagogue with its congregants inside than to do such a sensible thing as to ask for help interpreting what are undeniably Jewish documents! This is the inheritance of ignorance the translators were shackled with, because to have translated any other way (had they been so inclined) would have had them summarily dismissed. It is not the interpreters I dislike, nor is it Christians or Christianity as a whole. But the majority of men who formed and guided the church, from Marcion to Hitler (the ultimate end result of such works) I loath and despise. |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
