“For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”
Matthew 23:4

One of the great benefits of understanding the “preteristic” nature of the New Testament is the way the many supposedly “generic” apostolic warnings in the epistles are suddenly grounded in their Jewish context. The destruction of the Temple barely gets a mention in any church today, yet when the letters of Paul, Peter, James and John are understood to be aimed at Jews outside the Church and Judaizers inside it, the New Testament doesn’t become less relevant to us, but more relevant.

To modern Christians, the Herods and the Pharisees are clearly the bad guys when mentioned by name, yet there is a strange reluctance to recognize their presence or influence when they are not. Many scholars rail against first century Greek rhetors and Roman cultists as the target of the apostles’ ire, but nothing could be further from the truth. Those issues are out in the shadows, but judgment begins at the house of God.

James Jordan has done a great job in explaining the presence of the Herodian line as it was predicted, not by name but by nature, in the book of Daniel. [1] Peter Leithart has also made some interesting observations in his commentary on the epistles of John. [2] One reviewer, however, doesn’t think he goes far enough:

Leithart identifies the enemies against whom John is writing as a variant of Judaism. He then gives a thorough discussion of the various nuances of post-apostolic Judaism(s) and Gnosticism(s). He explains that scholars are divided on whether the enemies are Gnostics or Judaizers. The problem is that the enemies display characteristics of both groups, but are not reducible to either. John is writing before Gnosticism really became a problem, and the Judaizers seem to display anti-Jewish presuppositions.

Leithart is baffled by the Judaizers’ anti-material worldview. Is this not fundamentally at odds with the rich, creation-oriented worldview of the Old Testament? Leithart cannot really answer this question except to say the Jews were influenced by some Eastern proto-gnostic cults. That’s a half-truth, though. Leithart does not factor in the influence of the Talmud at all. This remains a fatal weakness in the Federal Vision movement. They note certain qualities of the Old Testament and read that into the worldview of “all Jews and all times.” When this happens, as we see here, they cannot account for the anti-Christian character of the Jews in John’s time.

Nevertheless, Leithart is onto something. His discussion points the reader to the interplay of Gnosticism and Judaism. Leithart’s weakness, though, is that he keeps wanting to see Judaism as something good and Old Testament-ish. After the Jews killed Christ, though, and in the book of Acts began defining themselves as violently anti-Christian, they became a different creature.

Perhaps Dr. Leithart is simply being polite in his assessment of post-Pentecostal Judaism. Or perhaps there was a marked difference between the “Old Testament” religion of the people and the “Talmudic” religion of the Jewish leaders, who oppressed the people and led them astray. Michael Hoffman writes:

Recall the scene in the Book of Luke when the Pharisees, using their sly ability to twist words, which has remained with their spiritual heirs to this day, tried to ensnare Jesus, when they asked Him, “By whose authority do you teach?” Jesus countered by asking of them a question in turn, “By whose authority did John baptize?”

This passage in Luke illuminates the extent to which the peasantry among the Jewish people, the am ha’aretz, were on Jesus’ side at that time. The Pharisees murmered among themselves, “If we answer that God sent John, He will say why were you not then baptized? But if we say John’s authority did not come from God, the people will stone us because they believe that John was a prophet.”

The “people” of Israel, the am ha’aretz, for a time believed John the Baptist and did not hold with the Pharisees or their anthropomorphic traditions. What is the status of Judaics in our time who do not believe in the Talmud? How do the rabbis judge Judaics who have not learned and may even have rejected the Talmud?

Hoffman goes on to quote some rabbinic definitions of the am ha’aretz in the Talmud, showing how Jews who did not highly regard or acquaint themselves with the oral tradition were viewed by the Pharisees. The quotations are astounding and disgusting, and they give modern Christians a glimpse of the perfect hatred of which Jesus and the first martyrs were victims. I will repeat only one quotation here:

“Rabbi Eleazaer said: An am ha’aretz — it is permitted to stab him (even) on the Day of Atonement which falls on the Sabbath.

“Said his disciples to him, Master, may we slaughter him (ritually)?

“The rabbi replied: This (ritual slaughter) requires a benediction, whereas that (stabbing of the am ha’aretz) does not require a benediction.

“Rabbi Samuel ben Nachmani said in Rabbi Yochanan’s name: One may tear an am ha’aretz like a fish!

“Said Rabbi Samuel ben Isaac: And (this means) stab him along his back.” [3]

Rabbinic Judaism was not and is not in any way “Old Testament-ish.” When Jesus warned His disciples about the “leaven” of the Pharisees, it had more to do with elitist hatred than “works salvation.” Familiarizing ourselves with the Talmud’s perversions would not only help us to interpret the New Testament more clearly (including the “ritual slaughter” of Christ and His Firstfruits), it would free many modern Christians of the erroneous idea that modern Jews worship the God of the Bible.

Critics of Islam are the toast of western society… It is not that we are opposed to honest Christian or scholarly analysis of Islam, however critical. We can’t help noting, however, the deafening silence of all these “courageous” crusading Christian authors and “politically incorrect” Conservatives when it comes to the “dark side” of what the Talmud “really teaches.” They have apparently forgotten that the first mission of Jesus Christ was to the “lost sheep of the House of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Today we are content to let them remain lost, while we thump our chests in glorious crusades against the hated Muslim. The modern Roman Catholic Church forbids speaking to the gentiles the truth about Judaism just as the rabbis tried to forbid Christians from doing so (1 Thessalonians 2:16). [4]

The sin of the Jewish people in Jesus’ day was not high-handed. They had been led astray by their teachers. The sin of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, however, was “high-handed,” that is, conscious sin. They knew the Scriptures, but they were a den of snakes in the Garden of God. They twisted and replaced the words of God. Consequently, Jesus told them that their spiritual father was the devil.

But this was before Pentecost. The coming of the Spirit of God enlightened the eyes of the Jews who believed and darkened the eyes of those who would not. The cult of the Talmud ceased to be merely “high-handed” concerning its opposition to Christ and His people. [5] It became outright demonic, which explains not only the apostolic hatred of the Judaistic false teachers, but the description of the “sorcerous” Covenant crimes of the great whore in the Revelation. Jesus condemns not “the kings of the earth” but “the rulers of the Land.”

Hoffman has a great deal to say about the manipulation of the modern West by “Talmudists.” Much of it will be seen as inflammatory, but on this I agree with him: Since World War II, the rabbinical “archetypal persecutors, haters, killers and racists” have used the victimization of Jews to render their religion immune from criticism by the Church. The accusation of “antisemite,” like “racist,” is a devilish use of historical, ethic truth to mask and protect a continued doctrinal lie. [6]

______________________________________
[1] See his Daniel commentary, The Handwriting on the Wall.
[2] See John’s Real Enemies.
[3] Michael Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods, pp. 13-14.
[4] Hoffman, pp. 17-18.
[5] See Strong Delusion.
[6] Jesus taught us not to confuse ethnic origins with spiritual character, which is why credobaptism is crucial to the mission of His Church.

Related posts:
Parallel Theologies
The Future of Israel Re-examined

Jump the shark definition.

Leaving Wilderness Behind

In Through New Eyes, James Jordan notes that the wilderness was Havilah, the place mentioned in Genesis 2 that was rich in raw materials. Israel stripped Egypt of her gold, then plundered the desolate places of hidden wealth. She came out of the desert with a High Priest clothed in gems, and a new generation of soldiers born of God’s threshing floor.

The manna began to fall just after the Hebrews’ victory over Pharaoh. As with Jacob, the Lord was faithful to provide for His chosen one. But perhaps, in covering the ground, there is also the idea of a firmament (this might sound strange to some readers, but I have found the concept is a frequent one). The wilderness is the place of the humble bread of priesthood, displayed in obedience to God. It was the next generation that would drink the wine of Canaan after obedience under Joshua.

A Memorial

The Lord commanded that some manna be put into the Ark as a memorial. Symbolising manna, the white stone is a memorial of faithful priesthood. Joshua’s crossing of the Jordan was memorialised by large, engraved, white stones.

And it shall be, on the day when you cross over the Jordan to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, that you shall set up for yourselves large stones, and whitewash them with lime. “You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over, that you may enter the land which the LORD your God is giving you, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey,’ just as the LORD God of your fathers promised you. Therefore it shall be, when you have crossed over the Jordan, that on Mount Ebal you shall set up these stones, which I command you today, and you shall whitewash them with lime. And there you shall build an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of stones; you shall not use an iron tool on them. You shall build with whole stones the altar of the LORD your God, and offer burnt offerings on it to the LORD your God. You shall offer peace offerings, and shall eat there, and rejoice before the LORD your God. And you shall write very plainly on the stones all the words of this law.” (Deut. 27:2-8)

Coming at the ‘Trumpets’ step of Israel’s journey from slavery to Sabbath, these white stones were a symbol of her corporate resurrection. Neither faithful Moses nor faithful Israel left a body to be found in the howling tomb. The dirty birds of the Covenant curse were empty-bellied.

From Gravestone to Topstone

The Hebrew bdl is the word used to describe God’s dividing at Creation. In post-exilic texts it is used to describe the division of the priesthood from the people, and sinners from the people. It is an act that brings about a new Creation. This is the word in the hand of Zerubbabel. It is not a plumbline. It is a metal stone symbolising a priestly division, a cutting in two that brings new life. What was the cutting in two? It was the future death of the Lamb that allowed Joshua to put on the Lord Jesus Christ in the heavenly court, under the very eyes of the very dirtiest bird, the Accuser.

Zerubbabel brought forth the engraved “altar” stone as a craftsman brings forth his chiselled work. As an altar stone, it was not cut by human hands, but engraved by the finger of God. Just as the prophets brought the stones of the Law down upon Israel under Nebuchadnezzar, so too this small white stone would be exalted. The two pillars of Solomon’s Temple (priest and king) were slain, but now replaced with a single element that was divided as priest and exalted as king. It was permanent bread from heaven that would never, ever be filled with worms, the very public face of the hidden manna in the lost Ark, and the Facebread hidden to all but the priests.

Flintstone-Faced

Ezekiel was promised a hard face so that he could face the hardened faces of God’s rebellious rulers. As a High Priest in exile, he was not given the golden forehead-plate with its seven holy eyes, but the real thing. The Bible speaks often of Adam’s face relating to priesthood. The ‘face of a man’ in Ezekiel 1 corresponds to the Table of Showbread in the north (always facing south). The account of Cain and Abel is structured according to the Creation/Tabernacle pattern, and at the Facebread step, the representative Man at the Altar, Cain’s face fell. He was no longer his brother’s keeper, his watchman. Ezekiel was made a new watchman because Israel’s priesthood had become like Cain.

Jesus also set His face like flint. As Facebread, it was covered in blood, first as the cursed brow-sweat, then with the cursed ground-thorns, Adam and Cain. He was set apart, cut asunder, as a bread fragrant with frankincense before God, then resurrected. An angel dressed in lightning-white sat on the stone to speak as a memorial. The howling waste of Sheol was empty, and so was the dirtiest bird, who like Herod and Haman and all those before, had anticipated a feast. He was a serpent exposed on a pole to disempower its fiery children, a man impaled by the emperor whose ungodly sons were also slain, a false god-voice devoured alive by death-eating worms on his stolen throne like overripe manna. There is no Sabbath without resurrection. All faces will be lifted to face God, and all faces will be covered – either in a bloody human firmament (Christ’s) or in a black hood, a veil. We are white stones, or whited sepulchres.

The Word is ‘Yes’

“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open” (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157).

Both Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds record these strange events. After the crucifixion, it is written that

1. the most important lamp of the Temple menorah went out every night despite every precaution. Judah’s Lampstand would be removed, and not shine in her any more. It was given to the witnessing Firstfruits church (Rev. 11:4; 18:23; 22:5).
2. the crimson thread that reportedly turned white if the Day of Atonement had been successful no longer did so
3. the Temple doors kept swinging open of their own accord. The Jerusalem Talmud states:
   ”Said Rabban Yohanan Ben Zakkai to the Temple, ‘O Temple, why do you frighten us? We know that you will end up destroyed. For it has been said, ‘Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars’ ” (Zechariah 11:1)’ (Yoma 6:3).
4. the Day of Atonement ‘lot’ that chose the goat for Azal, a black stone and a white stone, came up black every year between AD30 and AD70.

The scapegoat was chosen by lot, the Urim and Thummim engraved stones in the ephod – a miniature Ark worn by the High Priest. The Last Supper, as I have mentioned before, follows the feasts pattern, and at Atonement, Judas is chosen by Christ as the scapegoat. His replacement is chosen by lot, and then the Holy Spirit is poured out, after which we never hear of the lot again. Faithful saints are given the white stone by the Spirit, the Law engraved on tablets of flesh.

Zerubbabel’s exaltation of the white stone was a resounding ‘Yes!’ from the Lord. Atonement was accepted. The Temple of God would be completed and Israel’s resurrection would again turn the howling waste into a true vine and figleaf Feast of Tabernacles.

“For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.”  
2 Corinthians 1:20

If the Talmudic accounts above are true, and the black stone denotes that the atonement after the once-for-all death of Christ could never again be accepted, the white stone promised in Jesus’ letter to Pergamum takes on bloody connotations for the receiver. In context, it was written just before the biggest corporate massacre and resurrection of saints in history. They had received the Word-bread with thanksgiving. Now they themselves would be broken bread covering the ground in Herod’s howling waste. If the Herodian priesthood’s right hand would not be marked with the blood of the bdellium (divided) stone, it would be marked with the blood of the saints.

WHITSTON3