The Speeder – Commentary to Matthew 12

A man was on his way to watch a football game at his friend’s house. Eager to arrive, he found himself doing 60 mph in a 35 mph zone. Shortly, a police officer pulled him over.

“Do you realize that you were speeding?” the police officer asked.

Incensed the man began railing at the officer:

“Have you not heard how a husband sometimes rushes his pregnant wife as she goes into labor? Or are you so ignorant that you do not know that a fire truck breaks the speed limit and its driver receives no ticket? I tell you that I am greater than the fire chief! But if you had known that a warning is preferable to a ticket, you would not have harassed an innocent man. For I am lord of the roads!”

As the man was arrested, one could hear him shouting: “Speed limits were made for man, not man for speed limits!”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to The Speeder – Commentary to Matthew 12

  1. Fred says:

    Clever!

  2. Shalom, my Pharisee friend! You compared Yeshua to the speeder who violated the traffic law, but I see it differently. Please look carefully how the text says; it was His disciples who broke the law, not Yeshua! Matthew 12:1-8 “At that time Yeshua went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. HIS DISCIPLES were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! YOUR DISCIPLES are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath…. ”

    The text says the disciples were the speeder. Also, it was not Yeshua who was condemned by the Pharisees but the disciples were criticized! Yeshua never said “i didn’t break the law,” or “my disciples didn’t break the law.” Yeshua simply said that David and his men did something unlawful, and the priests can work on Sabbath in the temple without breaking the law. In my opinion, Yeshua seems to admit that His disciples broke the Sabbath law. Then, why He defends His disciples with these two biblical narratives? My friend, the Gospels is as profound as the Tanakh. We must think hard prayerfully to grasp the message. We will be surprised to see how mysteriously Hashem governed the accidents of the Jewish people to connect with the events of the Messiah.

    According to Samuel 21, the priest Ahimelech gave David the bread of the Presence which was just replaced by hot bread on the Sabbath day and allowed them to eat it, So David and his men ate it. LIkewise, Yeshua allowed his disciples to eat it on the Sabbath day. Now, read carefully; the priest Ahimelech did not give the bread right away without considering the law of Leviticus 24:5-9. He said something conditoinally, “… provided the men have kept themselves from women…”(1 Sam.21:4). What in the world this idea came from? I don’t see such things in the Law! Ahimelech made it up? The Satan put his words into the mouth of the priest? NO. He must have received the “unique divine revelation” about the priestly consumption of the consecrated bread. I want to call it “progressive revelation.” THREE TIMES, the Word of God emphasizes in “1 Samuel 22:10, 13, 15” that the priest Ahimelech INQUIRED OF THE LORD for David. It means that the priest asked about this complex situation, and the Lord who is the Lord of the Law revealed HIS heart to the priest so that he would give the bread to David! We see a same situation in Numbers 9:8 when Moses asked the Lord about the unexpected situation when people couldn’t keep the passover at the 14th day of the first month, the Lord gave them extra “make-up” day. OUR God is a REASONABLE God! Don’t confine HIS love, authority, and freedom to work for His beloved ones to the technicalities of the letters of the law!

    The Gospel of Matthew portrays Yeshua as the priest Ahimelech who asked and received the direct revelation from Hashem to allow eating on that day. Later, in 1Samuel 22, the priest Ahimelech got killed by Doeg the Edomite. What is significance of this? Look, Saul and his men represent Jews- the first born son of God- the first ordained king, and David and his men represent- the younger brother- church- secondly ordained king. Interestingly, just as the priest got killed by Edomite’s hand not by Saul’s hands, Yeshua was killed by Edomites-gentiles-Roman soldiers, not by Jews (Saul). Then, who is responsible for the death of the priest Ahimelech? Saul or Doeg? David says in 1 Sam.22:22, “That day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, I knew he would be sure to tell Saul. I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR the death of your father’s whole family.”(v.22)

    David is reponsible for the death of the priest. Who is David representing? First, speaking of the flesh, David represents today’s Jewish people, the descendants under the line of Judah (Or you may include the descendants of Benjamin, the Saul’s tribe). Secondly, speaking of the spirit, David symbolizes the Disciples- Christians- the church. The righteous Priest Yeshua died for both Jews and Christians when we were still sinners in breaking the Law of God. On the Sabbath day 2000 years ago, Yeshua worked in the grainfield temple to mediate between Hashem and us without breaking the law. He did not rest for our sake and later paid our penalties and rose again from the dead to justify us.
    “For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.”
    —- Isaiah 62:1

    • Gean Guk Geon
      You could make anything like this up and see “deep insight” into the drivel of anyone you choose to deify – there is no limit to the stretch of human imagination. It helps however to have a little knowledge of Torah Law before you start speculating – Leviticus 15:18 and 22:3 would have given you less room to imagine.
      Language is only useful insofar that people understand it – The words of Jesus are understood by countless people to read just as the words of the speeder in our parable and they were understood this way by the people he was talking to – if it takes 2000 years for someone to cook up an explanation – then its not language – its desperation

      • Thanks Rabbi for the scriptural references. It helps me understand why the priest Ahimelech mentioned bodily cleanness of David’s men. Nevertheless, I have questions: according to Leviticus22, only descendants of Aaron were to eat the consecrated bread, then why David and his men? Secondly, why 1Samuel 22 records three times “Ahimelech inquired of the Lord for David.” What is connection between the priest’s provision of the bread through breaking of the Law and the priest’s inquiring of the Lord? Did the priest hear a voice from God in his spirit and uphold a higher law of love than ceremonial law?(Lev.19:18)

        • Gean Guk Jeon
          David ate from the bread because it was a situation of life and death – the ritual Law is a law of love – there are no two laws. And if you noticed in chapter 21 it says nothing about asking of God – it is only in chapter 22 where it is mentioned – asking of God was the role of a person in a position of leadership (Numbers 27:21) for the priest to participate in this action on behalf of a rebel would be an act of rebellion – that is why it comes in there

          • I like it my friend, “the ritual law is a law of love- there are no two laws.”^^
            Interestingly, i see it in the words of Paul, “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Galatians 5:14

  3. mrsonic says:

    did anybody get divine revelation to tell them that when david was given the bread it was hunger that motivated him to take it ? what would be the point of using a text which does not explicitly say hunger was the motivation when jesus’ real intention is to say that he can tell his disciples to break the law because “lord of the sabbath” ?

    we don’t know the motives of david in 1 sam 21 for taking the bread , but motives of jesus are clear.

    • Nice to meet you mrsonic. what does “mrsonic” mean? What do you think David’s motive of asking for something to eat in his running away for days? i think even secular people could read the text and answer. Do you think Yeshua led His disciples into the grainfield in order to teach and practice “breaking of the law?” Even secular people could read the text and see that the disciples acted recklessly and their teacher defended them because they were condemned.

      • mrsonic says:

        “Do you think Yeshua led His disciples into the grainfield in order to teach and practice “breaking of the law?” Even secular people could read the text and see that the disciples acted recklessly and their teacher defended them because they were condemned.”

        1. i can’t see where 1 samuel says that david entered the house of god
        2. i can’t see that hunger was motivation for taking the bread. it could have been for later consumption

        quote:
        lawrence wills, ‘mark’ , in levine and brettler (eds.), the jewish annotated new testament , pp .55-95. mccarter (1 samuel , p. 349) also assumed that david and his men are to eat of it, though he does not specify whether THEY ARE HUNGRY AT THE MOMENT or whether they will eat it ONCE they do become hungry.
        end quote

        yeshua gives his INTENTION for allowing his disciples to break the sabbath
        mark is a text written for christians to allow them to break the sabbath.
        think about how christians would have interpreted the words “lord of the sabbath”

        jesus uses the unclear motives of david to justify his clear motivation :

        “the sabbath was made for man… son of man is even lord of the sabbath”

        1 samuel seems to be thinking that sabbath is holy because it is a holy day which god built into the cosmos.

        sacred
        special

        i don’t think author of samuel thought that sabbath was BUILt for man like jesus assumed.

        the writers of the christian texts were clearly down grading jewish holy days .

        • mrsonic says:

          “1 samuel seems to be thinking that sabbath is holy because it is a holy day which god built into the cosmos.”

          this is incorrect.

          the verses in genesis seem to be saying that sabbath is holy because it is a holy day which god built into the cosmos

          • That’s right, brother. Also, we must remember human notion of “rest from work” is different from divine notion of “rest form work.” in Genesis 2:3. The human work is doing and making stuff with our body moving. But the divine work is “blessing and speaking!” which happened during the first six days. If human rest means stop doing and making stuff, then, the divine rest is stop blessing and being quiet? NO. The divine rest is STILL “blessing and sanctifying.- Gen.2:3” The Sabbath day rule has two meaning. Not doing work as the Mosaic Law teaches & Doing blessing and sanctifying work as God did. I believe Yeshua did not work on the grainfield to keep the Law & blessed and sanctified both disciples and Pharisees.

          • mrsonic says:

            “If human rest means stop doing and making stuff, then, the divine rest is stop blessing and being quiet? NO. ”

            the divine command according to the bible is:

            8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

            10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

            11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

            so God built the 7th day and blessed it.

            the writer of mark writing later does not seem to pick up on this and has degraded the command.

            “sabbath is made for man not man for sabbath…”

            “The divine rest is STILL “blessing and sanctifying.- Gen.2:3” The Sabbath day rule has two meaning. Not doing work as the Mosaic Law teaches & Doing blessing and sanctifying work as God did. ”

            2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

            i don’t know what you are saying. are you saying that god as a human being is not doing work but at the same time blessing the work of his disciples on sabbath day?

      • mrsonic says:

        sonic = sonic the hedgehog

        i added mr before sonic.

  4. Jim says:

    Gean Guk Jeon,

    You are right to note that it was Jesus’ disciples that broke the law. On the other hand, one must wonder why their teacher stands there allowing them to break the law. However, when I wrote the parable, I was more concerned with the arguments Jesus makes rather than who was ‘driving the car’. The point is to examine the arguments and see if they make any sense. And they do not.

    You say that Jesus is not attempting to defend his disciples. On this I must say that you are quite mistaken. If he were not defending his disciples, the whole speech would make even less sense than it does. He could have just accepted the chastisement without castigating the Pharisees and certainly without the circumlocution upon which he embarks. Moreover, he tells the Pharisees that if they understood that God desires mercy and not sacrifice, they would not have condemned the guiltless. He is clearly excusing his disciples violation of the Sabbath.

    The arguments he makes to justify his disciples, as reflected in the parable, are illegitimate. First, he compares their situation to the emergency situation in which David found himself, but the disciples are not in an emergency. Then he compares the violation with the Sabbath to the duties of the priests that would under other circumstances violate the Sabbath, but the disciples are not fulfilling a Torah obligation in violating the Sabbath. In fact, when he says that the “priests in the temple violate the Sabbath,” he is incorrect, and his argument is absurd. After this he attacks the Pharisees for condemning the guiltless. And he concludes by declaring himself Lord of the Sabbath. Each of these arguments is troubling, as reflected in my parable.

    The problem one has when reading the NT is that the NT already sets up Jesus as a noble soul. When Jesus makes grandiose statements people tolerate them, because they have already come to accept that Jesus has a right to say them. However, let them hear these same words come out of the mouth of another, and they would be horrified. They would not testify that such a man is a noble soul. They might think him insane. They might think him evil. But they would not think him a prophet, messiah, or divine.

    Jim

    • Jim. Are you the Phariseefriend who wrote this post? Anyway, i am sorry for the confusing, when i said “then why He defends His disciples with these two biblical narratives?” i meant He defended His disciples. If you are saying “Emergency” or “other circumstances” you may seem to be adding to the Torah. And let us be clear: Pharisees attacked and Yeshua defended. not vice versa.

      • Jim says:

        Gean Guk Jeon,

        I did write this parable. Sorry for the confusion. However, I am not R’ Blumenthal. I am not Your Pharisee Friend.

        Regarding the emergency, I am referring to the faulty argument of Jesus. David was fleeing for his life when he took the showbread–an emergency. The disciples were in no such emergency. The “other circumstances” also refers to what Jesus says about the priests.

        Regarding who attacked whom: the Pharisees only pointed out what was true, that Jesus’ disciples were violating the Sabbath. This is not an attack, any more than a police officer issuing a ticket is an attack. However, Jesus railed at the Pharisees, attacking their character. And in fact, Jesus slanders the Pharisees quite regularly; this is not a one time event.

        Jim

        • Jim, thank you for your response.

        • I guess a phrase like “What they do is unlawful” would mean much more serious then than now. Neverthless, i thank my Pharisees in those times because Yeshua revealed lots of truth in convesating and arguing(?) with the Pharisees. I believe they were the agents and tools Hashem used to teach humanity the truth.

          • Gean Guk Jeon What makes you think that the phrase lost any of its seriousness? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Jim says:

            Gean Guk Jeon,

            I have been trying to understand your comment: “I guess a phrase like “What they do is unlawful” would mean much more serious then than now.” I take it to mean that you read such a comment as an attack. I am going to respond to the comment that way. If, however, I have misunderstood, please forgive my mistake.

            The reason I do not consider “What they do is unlawful” to be an attack, is because generally speaking, I do not consider it an attack when one accuses someone of a wrong they are doing openly. In fact, we might say that the Pharisees were actually doing a real good to Jesus and the disciples. After all, if you were breaking the law, would you wish someone to just stand by and allow you to continue breaking it? We might feel that way, but we know it is not to our benefit.

            Consider the mission of Ezekiel (3:16-21). He was sent to reprove sinners. And God says that if Ezekiel does not warn those of whom God says that they shall surely die, then Ezekiel will have incurred bloodguilt if they continue in their wrongdoing. But if he warns them and they ignore him, he will have saved his own life, even though they die. Moreover, he is to warn the righteous not to sin, with similar results.

            Would we say that when Ezekiel tells people that they are doing wrong, would we consider this an attack? I would not. Though they might not wish to hear what he has to say, he is really performing for them a good.

            And I would say that similarly, with the Pharisees, when they see the disciples violating the Sabbath, and they tell their master, this is not an attack. Obviously Jesus received it as an attack, but that does not make it one. Breaking the Sabbath is quite an offense, and the Pharisees ought to warn them that they are violating it. Sabbath is a deep bond between the Creator and Israel. One puts himself outside the covenant by taking it lightly. Rather than attacking Jesus and the disciples, the Pharisees have done them a great good. And they are repaid with evil for their efforts.

            Now Christians often see Jesus as one reproving the Pharisees and the Jews in general for their own benefit. Yet, his ‘rebukes’ I would call attacks. Let us consider the language he uses, and I think you will see why I call on rebuke an attack and another I do not. In Matthew 23, we see exactly how abusive Jesus could be. In verse 15 he calls the scribes and Pharisees children of hell. In verse 17, he calls them blind fools (in violation of his own teaching. See Matthew 5:22). In verse 33 he calls them “snakes” and “brood of vipers”. In verse 35 he holds them responsible for the death of Abel, who predated the Jewish people by over a thousand years. Actually, he is holding them responsible for the deaths of all the righteous within Tanach. Jesus is using quite hateful language, and he is attributing to the Pharisees sins with which they obviously could have had no involvement. This is what I would call an attack.

            I would ask you to compare the accusation of the Pharisees, which was true, that what the disciples did was unlawful. Compared to what Jesus says in Matthew 23, it is incredibly mild. So, I do see their accusation as serious. But I cannot see it as an attack. I hope this clarifies my comments.

            Jim

          • Jim, Thank you for your clarification. I understand your argument, and your logic seems to advocate what Yeshua did. I think as Ezekiel did good by warning and reproving sinners, Yeshua did good by correcting and reproving the condemnation of the Pharisees toward the fellow Jews, the disciples. The condemnation of the innocent is sin according to the Tenth Commandment, right? They condemned, based on their traditional regulations and extra-laws, not based on the spirit and contents of the Torah. I wonder why the word “Pharisees” does not even appear in Tanakh while “Yeshua,” “Messiah” and “disciples” appear in both Old and New Testaments. If our God condemns us when we eat some grains because of the hunger in a manner of eating fast food on Shabbath, we make God unreasonable god. Why Hashem by His providence led His people into the grainfield where HE fattened the grains by sending sunshines and rains and nutritions on soil? He would rather feed the hungry than suffering from the hunger to keep the Shabbat.

            All the prophet’s harsh languages from God to His people are spoken out of genuine love for them, not out of hatred. So were the languages of Yeshua.
            Yeshua did not mean “All Pharisees and Scribes are children of hell.” in Mt.23. “Those Pharisees and Scribes who are hypocrites” are children of hell. (Mt 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, )
            Yeshua clarified for us how to discern what is really wrong with them– “The scribes and the Pharisees are seated in the chair of Moses.Therefore do whatever they tell you, and observe it. But don’t do what they do, because they don’t practice what they teach.” (Mt.23:2-3)

          • Jim says:

            Gean Guk Jeon,

            I see that you have changed your mind. At first, you admitted that the disciples broke the Sabbath, but your assertion was that only they had done so and not Jesus. Now, as you call them innocent, you seem to say that they were not breaking the Sabbath. But of course, though Jesus calls them innocent, it is obvious from his arguments that they were not.

            Please note that Jesus does not say that they never broke the Sabbath. He does not say that the Pharisees have invented restrictions that did not exist. Instead, he attempts to justify their behavior by likening it to the emergency situation of David and then to a priestly action performed on the Sabbath. Reread my parable to understand why these objections are false. These incoherent arguments of his would not be necessary if no law was being broken.

            Hunger is not justification to break the Sabbath. The laws of God are not governed by our appetites; rather our appetites are to be governed by God’s law. The Jewish people have a covenant with God to observe and guard his Sabbaths. They are to be prepared for it. Recall how in the desert, God did not provide manna on the Sabbath, and the manna of the previous day was to be prepared ahead of time. The Sabbath is a weekly event, not one that comes upon one unawares. The disciples should have been prepared. And if they got to feeling hungry, then they could wait until they reached their destination. They could not be travelling terribly far; it was the Sabbath after all.

            Surely you have had to bear up under hunger before. It is not a major inconvenience. The disciples were not starving. They were merely hungry. I have known Christians to fast for a day, enduring hunger for what they considered a greater good. The disciples were not being asked even to do that.

            The Sabbath is a day in which the Jew acknowledges God as Master and Creator of the world. The ‘work’ from which the Jew abstains is not necessarily labor intensive. It is creative. The Jew, by abstaining from ‘work,’ proclaims that he is not the master of the world and that he relies upon God. It is not a day to be taken lightly. When the disciples place their hunger above this message, they are not properly acknowledging God as their Master. They treat their own desire as more important than guarding the Sabbath. Perhaps it would be better to say that they treat the Sabbath carelessly.

            The disciples were not innocent. If they had been, Jesus would not need to resort to such strange circumlocution to justify them. Though the offense might seem light, it still needed correcting. The Pharisees did that without maligning Jesus or his disciples. They did not call them “sons of the devil” or “vipers”. They did not accuse the disciples of being guilty of the “blood of Abel” or Zechariah ben Berachiah (a prophet who was not killed by the way). For their troubles, however, they were maligned. Jesus’ response to this incident was incoherent and self-aggrandizing. It showed also that, though he did not mind publicly humiliating his opponents and heaping invective upon their heads in the name of correction, he could not accept much milder correction without ‘flying off the handle’.

            Jim

          • Brother Jim, thank you for this very clear and logical response. I did enjoy comprehending your article. You are right; while i was writing, i was a little suspicious of my position on the legitimacy of the disciples’ behavior. And i find that it is because of what Yeshua had said; Yeshua SEEMS to admit that his disciples did something unlawful as David and his men did- ” He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was NOT LAWFUL for them to do, but only for the priests.”(v.5)
            Yeshua also seems to say both priests who work in the temple on Sabbath day and his disciples(seemingly) break the Sabbath.- ” haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple DESECRATE the Sabbath and yet are innocent?”(v.5) So, comparing priests, David, and his men with his disciples gives us impression that they all broke the Sabbath, but when He called them “innocent,” he seems to say that they did not break it. This seems to be self-contradictory but here comes a very important theological issue we must ask.
            I think this is what Yeshua has meant in his defensive argument (by the way, He did not say ‘vipers’ in this situation). WHAT is Sin? What was Yeshua’s definition of “Sin?” We normally think that sin is to break the law of God; Right in the moment when we begin to fail to observe it, the sin comes in. For example, when David and his men brought the sacred bread out of the temple, sin did not happen; when they bite and swallowed it, committing of sin happened. Sin is action. Of course it is action, but the Bible has much more to teach about sin. James 1:15 says, “Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” Just as a fetus is conceived, lust and desire in us is conceived. then, it gradually BECOMES a baby. The desire gradually becomes sin. As we don’t CREATE or MAKE a baby in us, we don’t do or make sin but Sin becomes a part of our body. Therefore, sin is not so much action as condition. I think sin came in Genesis 3:8 (condition; broken relationship and seperateness between God and man), not 3:6 (action; violating the law of God). Thus the salvation from sin means to be united with God because sin seperates us from God. Repentance means turning back to God. So, Matthew 1:21-23 says “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Yeshua because he will save his people from their sins.” Then, it is followed by the fulfillment of Isaiah prophecy of “IMMANUEL; God with us” Giving birth to Yeshua means transforming the condition of sin which was given birth to by our desires. David and his men broke the law but did not sin because God was there in the temple, with the priest, divine presence was there by דבר -Word when He was inquired of by the priest Ahimelech. Priests who serve in the temple on Shabbath break the technicality of the letters of the law but do not sin because of God’s presence with them and their loyalty and love for God. IN the same way, Yeshua, in whom God put His presence, was with his disciples, so he can declare they are innocent even though they did something unlawful. Now, because Yeshua was also with the Pharisees and had intimate conversations about the truth with them, they are also innocent! Yeshua did not condmn anyone as He said, “i came not to condemn but to save.” That’s why Mt 12:6 says Yeshua brings God’s presence like temple that heals all borken and seperated relationship by sin ” But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.” IN The grainfield, the expanded room of God and men, there cannot be condemnation because there was God’s presence.
            So, God is consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29) that consumes all sins. Psalm 16:11 says “Thous will show me the path of life: in THY PRESENCE is fulness of joy; at the Right HAND there are pleasures for evermore.”
            JOb 26:6 “Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.”
            You are right, brother, in saying that “The laws of God are not governed by our appetites; rather our appetites are to be governed by God’s law” Amen. The salvation of God is not governed by our action; rather He saves and heals whomever He chooses to be with.

          • Dina says:

            Gean, just jumping in here to comment on your last sentence: “The salvation of God is not governed by our action; rather He saves and heals whomever He chooses to be with.”

            This flatly contradicts God’s own teachings, that we are supremely in command of our spiritual destiny through our actions. See Genesis 4:7; Deuteronomy 30: 11-14, 19-20; Ezekiel Chapters 18 and 33. Also Psalms 145:18.

          • Dina, thank your for jumping in. I also see that the word of God teaches the critical role of our action and right response to the commandments of God. But, if the salvation of God is governed by our action and by what we have accomplished by obeying it, then… so many Jews and Chrisitans in the Old and New covenant may lose the salvation because they sometimes fail to observe it. I don’t mean we can ignore the law; rather we should strive to keep it, to keep the spirit and heart of God manifested in the Law; however, our keeping the law cannot be the basis of our salvation. Salvation belongs to God, not us.
            “Truly my soul waiteth upon God: FROM HIM cometh my salvation. HE ONLY is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.” (Psalm 62:1-2)
            Who HE is and What HE has done for us is the basis of our salvation!
            “The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalm 14:2-3; 53:2-3; Romans 3:9)
            We are saved by GRACE and MERCY of God in HIS Covenant — Psalm 89: 26-37, Ephesians 2:8-9)
            WE are saved by what HE has done for us, not by what we have done for Him. So, God’s salvation and God’s righteousness is fulfilled in what God has done in Yeshua- Isn’t it what Isaiah 46:13 are referrring to?
            Let us listen to the conversation between Moses and the Lord (Exodus 33:12-23), especially verse 19– ” And he said, I will make all MY GOODNESS pass before thee, and I will proclaim THE NAME of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.”

          • Dina says:

            Gean, I need some time to reply to all of this, but I just want to say something quickly.

            Why do you believe in God? Psalms 14 says there is no God. See verse one. It says, clear as clear, “There is no God”! What could be plainer than that?

            Now tell me, what is wrong with what I just did? And then perhaps you can see what you did that is just as wrong.

          • You are right, Dina, and i think ‘the fool'(v.1) and ‘sons of men'(v.2) makes “all (ha col)… together (Yahedu)”(v.3)? In verse 5 says not “there are righteous people by action worthy of salvation” rather they are saved and righteous because of The Presence and of the Lord with them and being refuge for them. How come? In what way? verse 7 answers that.

          • LarryB says:

            Gean
            Exodus 33.”He said: “I will let all My goodness pass before you; I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you, and I will favor when I wish to favor, and I will have compassion when I wish to have compassion”.
            I wonder, which is the correct reading of 33:19? Is it Who i wish to favor or When I wish to favor ?? Who would match Paul in the NT. It changes the whole meaning.

          • Dina says:

            Really, though, who says the salvation is a spiritual salvation? Salvation in the Torah refers to political salvation, salvation from oppression, persecution, and the like.

            The concept of God saving us from our own sins without us having to do a thing about it does not exist anywhere in Tanach.

          • Amen! NT says same thing! The concept has not changed! Salvation is to be with God eternally from the seperation by sin, to inherit the eternal kingdom of God that is Jerusalem, and to become His children forever

          • Dina says:

            Gean, I do not think you understood what I said at all.

          • Jerusalem.., i meant the city where i am living now in Israel. Salvation from slavery, persecution, death, disease, oppression from wicked government are partially realized and fulfilled by the people of God and will ultimately fully fulfilled by Messiah’s coming. He will establish the righteous and holy city of God on earth, thus restore the garden of Eden. This is how i understand from both OT and NT.

          • Good to see you again Larry! good observation! i will study the Hebrew text again to translate the verse.

          • LarryB says:

            Dina
            There has to be a correct version of 33:19. The one I c/p was from chabad bible online. Do you know ?

          • Dina says:

            There is only one version, as far as I am concerned. I will translate as best as I can:

            He said, I will pass all my goodness before you and I shall call in the name of the Lord before you. I shall have grace for whom I have grace and I shall have compassion for whom I have compassion.

            I see that the Stone edition adds the word “when” and I’m not sure why; perhaps Rabbi B. can weigh in? I will say this, though: it has nothing to do with what Gean is talking about. God is answering an age-old question here: why do the good suffer? And His answer boils down to this: because I said so.

            It has nothing to do with saving people from sin. There is no way to read that into the text. It’s astonishing to me.

  5. Dina says:

    Following.

  6. Fred says:

    ““The salvation of God is not governed by our action; rather He saves and heals whomever He chooses to be with.”

    So how does God make that choice? Is it made before you are born? If so, then what criteria is used to condemn a person who God chose not to enlighten and “be with” before their birth?

    • Fred! thank you for the comment and forgive me for the late response. please read Exodus 33:19 and Romans 9:19-29. I believe that will answer to you

      • Fred says:

        Exodus 33:19 In context: 18Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” 19And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 20But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”…

        This doesn’t help your argument for Calvinism, predestination or for Jesus as God for that matter. But if it does, there is no reason for you to even be posting here, since God has already made his decision about every single person before they were even born. You say our choices make no difference because our choices are not even our choices. The evil man was created to be evil and the good man was created to be good. You believe those who “reject christ” were predestined to do so. In your thinking , it is God’s will that the vast majority of humanity “reject christ”. You would only have to post once, proclaiming the 2nd person of the trinity and the third person of the trinity would take over from there with “irresistible grace” to those predestined to accept your religion. No further discussion would be needed.

        Your continual posting on these boards is evidence that you do not even believe that argument yourself. Remember, Jesus said ( paraphrase), “tell them, and if they do not accept it, shake the dust from your sandals.” He did not say, ” Keep debating them until they see it your way”.

        As for your Pauline verse from Romans, it is irrelevant.

        • The Real Messianic says:

          I think that the calvinistic god is an awful god, but most ignore the fact that many non-testament verses teaches exactly that! You can’t barely make it more clear than “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. “, but like most christians, they try to rationalise, because the god of the non-testament is a cruel god who enjoy sending people to hell, just for his own pleasure of showing his own wrath!

          • Long time no see, brother! I also think that the calvinistic god is an awful god. I think the God of Israel, the God of the Bible is an awsome God whose love is infinite!

        • First of all, I am really sorry for the owner of this blog. I happened to paste the dialogues i had here onto my blog and suddenly pingbacks(? what is it?) were pasted here, and how can i erase this? Please forgive me.
          I don’t care what theologians say, but i do care what the Bible says. Why the nation Israel was chosen among nations? Because He loved and chose them! (Deuteronomy 7:6-9) What i wanted to say is not that we can do whatever we want to do because salvatoin is gained already. The NT also refutes that mentality- Philippians 2:12 says, “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” What i meant was that Salvation of God is not GOVERNED by our action. When the saved people of God stand before Him in the last day, they will know and worship Him because their faith, their works, their righteousness, and their fruits all came from gifts from God. So the Hesed love in His covenant is what saves us. In terms of salvation, God takes all the soverignty- 1 Samuel 17:47, Psalm 3:8, Revelations 7:10

          • LarryB says:

            Gene Buk Geon
            “What i meant was that Salvation of God is not GOVERNED by our action”
            Dina dealt with that when she joined the conversation. Your response “But, if the salvation of God is governed by our action and by what we have accomplished by obeying it, then… so many Jews and Chrisitans in the Old and New covenant may lose the salvation because they sometimes fail to observe it.” You continue, “I don’t mean we can ignore the law; rather we should strive to keep it, to keep the spirit and heart of God manifested in the Law; however, our keeping the law cannot be the basis of our salvation.” First you say, we cannot ignore the law, Then you say we can, just by keeping the spirit of the law, followed by keeping the law cannot be the basis for our salvation, translation, it’s not that important. By the way Gene, what part of the law do you keep?

          • I honor and listen and try to keep all the commandments not to be saved but because i am saved. When i find myself failing to observe all those (613?) commandments, i realize i am a sinner who needs mercy of God. i believe i am saved by what God has done in the history of Israel and in the life, death, and resurrection of Yeshua.

          • LarryB says:

            Gean Guk Jeon
            All 613….wow, how do you do it?

  7. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  8. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  9. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  10. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  11. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  12. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  13. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  14. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  15. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  16. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  17. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  18. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  19. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  20. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  21. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  22. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  23. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  24. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  25. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  26. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  27. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  28. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  29. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  30. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  31. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  32. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  33. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  34. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  35. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  36. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  37. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  38. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  39. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  40. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  41. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  42. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  43. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  44. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  45. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  46. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Law?예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

  47. Pingback: Isn’t Jesus a breaker of the Shabbat Law? 예수는 안식일 율법을 깨트린 자가 아닌가? – ShalomShalomIsrael

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s