|
Seeds of the Kingdom
By Brother Jeffrey Keith
Instead of seeking truth and exploring the many aspects of the nature of Yah
we attack each other over doctrine. Nothing new, Luke 12:1 and other passages
talk of the ... "leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy" ... the pretense
of having characteristics one does not possess. Case in point: Bishop Usher’s
chronology is accepted, proven doctrine so you are just ignorant and can't read
if you don’t believe it. One or both sides presuming to have the character of a
scholar possessing all there is to know about the subject.
... scripture must be read in light of all knowledge known ... Dr. Charles A.
Briggs of the Brown, Driver, Briggs’ "A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament". A leading German archeologist, Semitic Culture and Semitic Languages
expert of the 17th century.
America has believers. Israel has believers. Nazi Germany had believers.
Judea had believers. The whole world has believers. A geographic location that
someone's parents happened to be living at is no reason to decide whether or not
someone should be considered a brother/sister. Likewise the genes granted
him/her as a result of parents copulating should be no factor in determining
fellowship.
When a peripatetic teacher taught in haeretz (the land), he was teaching a
people who were raised on the TaNaK. Usually talmudim (students) started in the
home at age three, then the book of purity, (leviticus). These students had, by
the age twelve, memorized most of the teachings or Law (Torah), prophets
(Nevi'im) and writings (K’tuvim) TNK i.e TaNaK. This is important to know in
understanding the words of King Yeshua.
The teacher would use a word from the TaNaK that would instantly remind these
students of a passage from the TaNaK so the context of the message was alluded.
He would then give a short dissertation and then usually an admonition or two
that demanded action. Those who would not hear because of their hypocrisy got
mad or walked away, (John 6:60).
Matthew 5:17 ... "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" ... is a Hebraism which you
can only get context for 'outside' Christendom. The phrase "destroy the law" is
an idiom peculiar to Rabbinic writings and can only be interpreted in context
from the mishna and talmud.
The Hebrew culture was/is unusual but it came as no surprise when two rabbis
disagreed diametrically on interpretation of any given passage. It was
considered as if the rabbi had simply "unveiled" another aspect of the Source of
Life that dwells in all living things. The disagreement between the rabbis was
considered as if each rabbi was "beholding" a different facet of that "diamond"
which is the Source of Life. When one teacher was adamant about the
misinterpretation of the law by another teacher, he would exclaim, "You are
destroying the law". Yeshua said he had come to correctly interpret the law not
misinterpret it.
Matthew 5:17 is a good example of why Hebrew things must be interpreted from
an Hebrew perspective and compared with and in the knowledge of all that have
gone before (Briggs). A Christian interpretation of Matthew 5:17 that lacks the
Hebrew cultural recognitions has created division and presented a conundrum of
scripture that results in a flurry of misconception. Many of these conundrums
cannot be worked out by one who is not versed in Midrash and Hebrew idioms. This
lack creates/created the argument of who is Israel and has gone as far as
alienating races of people and scholars of science from the people of Yah for
centuries. But now I'm back at the idiom dealing with chronology ... Nah ...
maybe some other time.
Christians who hold to a view of being spiritual Israel, (replacing the
people called Israel who were given Law at Mount Sinai), often use Matthew 5:17
to prove that those who don't accept the King are lost because He fulfilled the
Law, therefore Law cannot be used for justification, yet they insist portions of
Law must be kept. (Just one argument among the many erroneous conclusions drawn
from ignorance of Hebrew culture and idioms).
Matthew 5:17-18 is Christian conundrum at its best because it cannot be
reconciled with verses like Exodus 12:24 and Exodus 28:43 ..."a statute for ever
unto him and his seed after him" ... Exodus 29:28, Exodus 30:21 ... “a statute
for ever“ ... , Exodus 31:17, Leviticus 6:18, Leviticus 6:22 ... “a statute for
ever unto the LORD” ..., Leviticus 7:36, Leviticus 10:9, etc. “For ever” being
used over fifty times in the Torah. I say a conundrum at its best because a
whole "replacement theology" doctrine must then be formulated from verses like
Colossians 2:14 to explain Law as ceremonial, sacrificial, etc. ad nauseum. The
whole book of Acts must eventually be reinterpreted to explain away the fact
that the Hebrews/Jews are still following Law and acting like Jews and the
Gentiles are not following Torah/law like Hebrews yet they are all part of the
Kingdom.
Matthew 5:17 finds the Pharisee(s) already mad at Yeshua. Not only was Yeshua
directly referring to priestly functions in the temple as breaking the first
commandment but he was encouraging the Kingdom government in opposition to that
existing priestly government. One of the lawyers "probably" accused Yeshua of
"destroying the Law" and Yeshua said, "I am not come to destroy (interpret
incorrectly) but to fulfil (correctly interpret)" ..., thus verse 18. ... "Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot (yod) or one tittle (camets) shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (1096 ginoma)" ...
This passage is an example of a Hebrew idiom and the next verse (verse 18)
contains an example of Hebrew parallelism. These parallelisms are found through
out the text. The first part of the verse, ... Till heaven and earth pass ...
being paralleled by the second part ... till all be fulfilled ... [(1096 ginoma,
a Hebrew construct as in Gen.4:8, "came to pass" contrasted with 4137 pleroo "to
fulfill" a promise to Him,) male 04390 of Is.40:2].
Genesis 4:26 "... Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his
name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD" ...
We need to wipe the slate. Bullinger missed it when he said the above verse
was when people began to serve and follow men as gods, as did Branham with his
serpent seed doctrine. The bible is a narrative about government and His people
that were created in His exact image and likeness. These people began as equals
to and respectful of HaShem. The people blew it, going the way of Baalam,
setting up governments of men (Genesis 4:17)
.
Atonement was given to Adam so he wouldn't be cut off. Cain rejected the way
of HaShem and learned sorcery ie: coercion and manipulation and government by
force. Cain was a farmer, he had to turn to another source for his sustenance
because the earth rejected them (Genesis 4:11).
You can follow the lineage of Cain, (in the Hebrew not the KJV), right
alongside the lineage of His people starting from Seth and Enos. Noah was
righteous because of the Law with its atonement. Noah was that part of the
Kingdom that was left from the lineage of Seth while the rest of mankind
followed after men, (other gods). This is in throughout the narrative ...
following other gods. Angry men controlling all others by/with governments of
men.
... "The germ of revolution in Jesus’ preaching does not emerge from a
criticism of Jewish law, but from other premises altogether. These premises did
not originate with Jesus. To the contrary, his critical assault stemmed from
attitudes already established before his time. Revolution broke through at three
points: the radical interpretation of the commandment of mutual love, the call
for a new morality, and the idea of the kingdom of heaven....
Luke 6:36 is a parallel to Matthew 5:48: "You must be perfect, as your
heavenly Father is perfect." The best way of translating this saying is, "There
must be no limit in your goodness, as your heavenly Father’s goodness knows no
bounds" [New English Bible]. Matthew 5:48 is merely the conclusion to a short
homily where Jesus teaches that God reaches out in love to all people,
regardless of their attitude and behavior toward him, "for He makes his sun rise
on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." In
this Jesus is not far from the humane attitude of other Jews. R. Abbahu said,
"Greater is the day of rainfall than the day of resurrection. For the latter
benefits only the pious, whereas the former benefits pious and sinners alike"
[B. Ta’anit 7a]. R. Abbahu lived about 300 A.D., but there is a similar saying
dating from Jesus’ time. Thus, it is no wonder that in such a spiritual
atmosphere Jesus drew his daring conclusion: "Love your enemies!" (Matt. 5:44).
In other words, "Return love to those who hate you" or: "Do good to those who
hate you" (Luke 6:27)....
A man’s relationship to his neighbor ought, therefore, to be determined by
the fact that he is one with him both in his good and in his evil
characteristics. This is not far from Jesus’ commandment to love, but Jesus went
further and broke the last fetters still restricting the ancient Jewish
commandment to love one’s neighbor. We have already seen that Rabbi Hanina
believed that one ought to love the righteous and not hate the sinner. Jesus
said, "I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
(Matt. 5:44). It is true that in those days semi-Essene circles had reached
similar conclusions from different presuppositions, and Jesus’ moral teaching
was influenced by these circles. Yet, influences do not explain everything" ...
(David Fluesser, 'Jesus', Chpt. 5:, pp. 81, 83, 88)
Jesus’ concept of the righteousness of God, therefore, is incommensurable
with reason. Man cannot measure it, but he can grasp it. It leads to the
preaching of the kingdom in which the last will be first, and the first last. It
leads also from the Sermon on the Mount to Golgotha where the just man dies a
criminal’s death. It is at once profoundly moral, and yet beyond good and evil.
In this paradoxical scheme, all the "important," customary virtues, and the
well-knit personality, worldly dignity, and the proud insistence upon the formal
fulfillment of the law, are fragmentary and empty. Socrates questioned the
intellectual side of man. Jesus questioned the moral. Both were executed. Can
this be mere chance? (Ibid. Chpt. 6: Ethics, p. 102 The above quotes are
reprinted here for educational purposes only as secondary sources not primary)
... From the quote above ... It is true that in those days semi-Essene
circles had reached similar conclusions from different presuppositions, and
Jesus’ moral teaching was influenced by these circles. Yet, influences do not
explain everything" ... Gen. 3:15 ... "And I will put enmity between thee and
the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou
shalt bruise his heel"
... The influences to Yeshua don’t explain everything" ... because of the
seed. The serpent seed doctrine interprets Gen. 3:15 to be an indication of
genetics. A much better place to interpret a change in genetic lines would be at
the gate to Yah. The tower of Babel created a division amongst men that
can/could be readily discerned amongst race. A different subject, though
directly related, for another time.
Matthew 22:29 ... "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing
the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30: For in the resurrection they neither
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" ...
Yeshua is not talking about whether angels have sex or not in Matthew 22
although without going outside of hermeneutics it can be inferred. Man is made a
little lower than the angels, (Psalms 8:5, Hebrews 2:7-9}, in the realm of
death. Man is not an angel and Genesis 6:4 is not about angels having sex with
women. Another topic for another time.
Hanachash (05175 the serpent) is not specifically spelled out as an angel but
is indeed a creation of Yah and therefore subject to Him. Nor is hanachash
(05175 the serpent) defined as a beast of the field in Genesis 3:1, ... "Now the
serpent was more subtil than any beast" ..., rather defined as more subtil than
a beast. The nature of this nachash (serpent) is found in a word study of the
root and corresponding synonyms, for Hebrew talmidim, but is beyond the scope of
this post. Suffice for now that this creature is associated with the tree of
knowledge. (Side note: One does not discern BETWEEN good and evil but rather
learns to recognize BOTH as from the same source, Hebrews 5:14)
The task at hand is the identity of the people of Yah. The direction this
post is going is anathema to me. It would be beneficial to point out who we are
not point out who we are not. How can the slate be wiped clean to find out what
and who we are if the doctrine and prejudices are not first dispelled? O
wretched, ignorant man that I am! Proverbs 6:19 ... "A false witness that
speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren" ...
We are not a genetic line from Eve and the devil and neither is any other
race. Straight out Eve did not have sex with the devil and produce the lineage
of Cain or any number of contortions of the like manner and seemingly backed up
by John 8:44, Genesis 3:15 and a plethora of doctrine.
Follow this logic: If Bishop Usher's chronology is to be followed, (ineffable
word doctrine), then there had to be people here on this, (prison), planet
before Adam and Eve were created. Spawn of the devil created in the image and
likeness of their father. This is the Christian distortion of the Kabalistic
scenario of Adam loving Layla, (03915 layil - night), and having sex with her
produced the races that existed here before the people of Yah. Mildly put, a
horrible mix of poor Hebrew translation, racism and Christian doctrine but not
without some merit, as the background of coercion is to divide and conquer.
Following the above interpretational doctrine helps removes personal
responsibility for my own faults, hatred and prejudices. After all, its divine
inspiration available only to the people of Yah, hidden from the ignorant
serpent seed. Not.
Support this Ministry:
Other articles:
Open Letter by Brother Jeffrey
Higher Biblical Criticism by Brother Jeffrey
Seeds of the Kingdom by Brother Jeffrey
Gnosticism by Brother Jeffrey
| 
