Question: When is a house of prayer a house of prayer? Answer: When Yahweh’s people are redeemed.
In today’s Western culture, we have mostly lost the use of symbolism to instruct, enlighten, and illicit change. But in the ancient world, lives were structured around, maintained, and altered through the power of symbolism. Yeshua is one person who showed himself a masterful artisan of symbol. Indeed, it appears to have been his primary method of interaction.
One symbol which Yeshua constantly dramatized in his life and words was that of restoration from exile. Even in those moments that might mistakenly be thought of as moralizing or ethical instruction, Yeshua was representing and enacting in present event a story tied to past history and looked for in future hope.
Then Jesus entered the temple courts and began to drive out those who were selling things there, saying to them, It is written, ’My house will be a house of prayer’
.
Luke 19:45-46a, NET
One might see in this statement a chastisement for corruption and the establishment of true piety. But this is was no plea for correct ritual. As Yeshua crossed the courts speaking of Yahweh’s house as a house of prayer, he directly identified the eschatalogical promises of Isaiah 56 with his activity.
Thus saith Jehovah, Keep ye justice, and do righteousness; for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, the son of man who holdeth it fast…
Unto them will I give in my house and within my walls a memorial and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
…even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer…
…for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.
Isaiah 56:1-2a, 5, 7a, c, ASV
Is the temple meant for prayer? Surely. The nation? Certainly. But prayer does not reach Yahweh when he has cast his people away from him because of their sin. A house of prayer is, therefore, a house redeemed. Those aware of symbol would hear in Yeshua’s words the bold assurance that the days Israel once longed for in which she would throw off the yoke of her enemy and be restored to her God were occurring right then in her midst. They would hear a declaration that Yahweh’s righteousness had now come to Israel. And they would be presented with a challenge to follow the one, this son of man, leading the way of return to Yahweh.
One authoritative, ancient Jewish tradition about who wrote what in the Old Testament is preserved as follows…
Who wrote the Scriptures? — Moses wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and [the last] eight verses of the Pentateuch. Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the Book of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms, including in it the work of the elders, namely, Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Yeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote the book which bears his name, the Book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote (Mnemonic YMSHK) Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote (Mnemonic KNDG) Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote the book that bears his name and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles up to his own time.
Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin: Tractate Baba Bathra: 14b-15a
The tractate continues discussing parts and pieces that different authors contributed, clarifying, for instance, who wrote of Moses’ death [Joshua], who wrote of Samuel’s death [Gad the Seer], which psalms were written by Adam, Melchizedek, or Abraham, etc. There is even a record of several rabbis thinking Job was post-exilic:
R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both stated that Job was among those who returned from the [Babylonian] Exile, and that his house of study was in Tiberias.
Ibid, 15a
The kavod…is a luminous manifestation by which God descends to earth and is made visible. The kavod resides in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle and the Jerusalem Temple. It is the precursor of the shekhinah, or Divine Presence, of later Jewish sources, but is not entirely identical in conception.
Victor Hurowitz, Understanding the Priestly Source, Bible Review
An earlier, more primitive concept of Yahweh’s immanence? I’ve never heard of the kavod before. I know the shekinah concept was fully articulated in Rabbinic times, but always thought the concept reached back into ancient Israelite history. Well, there’s one more thing to learn about. Fortunately, it’s things like this that get me excited.
This is sometimes also called the Jesus Papyrus or the Huleatt manuscript. P64 is one of the earliest extent Greek manuscripts of the New Testament containing portions of Matthew. I’ve found that on many less than scrupulus sites, P64 is listed as a manuscript which refers to Yeshua as God. Thus, for instance, you have this dubious quote floating around the internet, about which no reference or evidence is ever given for its origin, translation, or veracity:
She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus’] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant…. God, aware of this, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.]…
unknown reference
A little investigative activity revealed that the word God
does not actually exist in P64. The reason it has been supplied is because a German scholar by the name of Thiede reconstructed missing and fragmentary portions of text in a way that proposed a nomina sacra for Yeshua. The nomina sacra, though it may not be a shortened form of the word God
, could still hint at some sacred meaning (like considering Yeshua divine). The problem is that the proposed nomina sacra do not physically exist on the papyrus.
Below is a picture of P64 for your pleasure. I am not certain whether the fragments are recto or verso or even displayed in the correct order.
Learning Biblical Greek? Want to interact with the NT texts in their original language? http://www.zhubert.com/ provides tools that will be invaluable to both student and teacher. View the Greek of any passage of the NT and chose which manuscript you want to use. Translate any passage from any available manuscript and save or edit your translation. Build vocabulary cards–you can even specificy which verses you want your vocab to come from. Search for a verse in Codex Sinaiticus and either display the Greek or watch it highlight that verse directly inside the pages of a fascimile edition. Let your pointer hover over any Greek word and it will tell you its definition, gender, Strong’s number, etc. They even have my favorite English translation (the NET Bible) built right in for easy reference and note viewing. So what are you waiting for? Get your Greek on!
About this book of the Revelation of John, I….consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic… I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it… Christ is neither taught nor known in it.
My own opinion about Revelation is that it has done more harm than good. It has been the catalyst and origin of most anti-Christian cults. It has unwillingly led hundreds of thousands to error and vain imaginations. It has seduced even the people of God so that they should be turned from good and relevant actions in their world to focus instead on flights of future fantasy. It has led to the rest of scripture being twisted and mistreated. I believe it would have been better if Revelation was never accepted into the canon. At one point, I even considered ripping it out of my bible.
It is quite a turn of events for me to say this. Those who knew me several years back know that Revelation was one of my favorite books. Indeed, I was one of those seduced. I read not about Yeshua or the ways of the kingdom. I fed no hungry and helped no poor. I sought no scholastic and critical learning, but my ears rang with the sound of popular political preaching. I became obsessed and driven by an eschatalogical agenda. In conflict with charity, I sought those outside my party (Preterism) against whom I could harshly oppose and defeat. If there is a witness to the calamity of this book, it is I.
In several instances, there appear to be parallels in John’s gospel to the dual-theism expressed by Philo. I wrote briefly on this in one of my first posts (Philo’s Logos, The Second God) in which I showed how John 1:1 could be understood to refer to two separate gods, both of whom are identified with Yahweh. The following verse from John may be another instance in which Yeshua could be described as a Second God:
No man hath ever seen God; the only begotten God…
John 1:18, Syriac Peshitta
No one has seen God at any time, the only begotten God…
John 1:18, NASB
No one has ever seen God; the only God…
John 1:18, ESV
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God…
John 1:18, NET
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son…
John 1:18, NKJV
No one has ever seen God; the only Son…
John 1:18, RSV
No man saw ever God, but the one begotten Son…
John 1:18, Wycliffe NT
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son…
John 1:18, YLT
So what is John calling Yeshua…the only begotten God or the only begotten Son?
Historically, those who might be referred to as Orthodox
(Irenaeus, Tertullian, Basil) have favored the Son texts. This was obviously done to counter those who might be perceived as heretics (Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Arius) that favored the God texts. (It may be worth mentioning that the earliest Greek manuscripts of John, P66 and P75, contain only begotten God
)
If only begotten God
is original to John, this might be evidence that John sees Yeshua, like Philo saw the Logos, as a second, separate god. However, being relatively unfamiliar with Johannine theology, I wonder if this idea could really be supported. I would appreciate hearing from those entrenched in Johannine scholarship on the issue.
Apply to Fuller’s Theology School for Fall of 2007. Five year goal, two classes a quarter every quarter, Fall 2007 – Summer 2012. Double Major: Master of Arts in Theology, Biblical Studies and Theology; Master of Arts in Theology, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Languages.
Use the time between now and Fall 2007 to get involved in one or two small groups. Become a member of a church–find an authority to submit and serve under. Continue teaching myself Hebrew, finish all Bible.org seminary-level theology courses, finish patriarchal narrative studies, knock several textbooks off my reading list:
Subscribe to these academic journals:
Got Apocrypha? The original 1611 KJV did.
Throughout the 1611 KJV, there are notes (*) in the margins linking a verse with other verses of scripture. Many of these notes link scripture passages with verses in the Apocrypha. So, for instance, here we have the KJV pointing to the Wisdom of Solomon right alongside verses from Matthew, 1 John, and Jude for further reference and instruction concerning Genesis 4:8 (above).
(See Voyages – 2)
A few things I find interesting just in this portion of text… Some objects are given masculine instead of neuter pronouns. For instance, it doesn’t say yielding fruit after ITS kind
, it says yielding fruit after HIS kind.
Another interesting thing is that the translation does not always follow the Hebrew. There are notes in the sides which, like a modern translation, give more literal renderings. For instance, in verse 4, there is a cross (+), which points to the side margin, where it says the translation and God diuided the light from the darkeneffe
actually says in Hebrew and God diuided betweene the light and betweene the darkeneffe
, which communicates something slightly different. So again, like a modern translation, we see the words of scripture being changed in the KJV to accommodate language, not necessarily to follow the actual biblical text word for word as is supposed.
Certain words that must be supplied to make sense in English like was
(1:2), it was
(1:4), and were
(1:7) are in small print using a different typeset. They are not italicized like other KJVs. What a chore that must have been.
Although not occuring in Genesis 1, the name of God, translated LORD, is in a larger print than the rest of the text, not simply capitalized. The four fancy uppercase letters stick out from the rest of the text and resemble almost a sign, not a word, like the proto-Hebrew script used for the name of God in some DSS.
