Some Thoughts on Jews and Christians

It is often portrayed that Christianity and Judaism are separate. In the form that they take nowadays, it is true that they are. Mainstream modern Christianity, with its megachurches, rock concert services, emphasis of the spirit over the body, and Westernized mindset, is miles away from the Jewish faith—both that of the first century and that of today. Jews often look at Christianity as the bastard child of the elaborate, rich Jewish tradition, while Christians look at Judaism as a primitive, obscure, weird religion devoted to endless rules and regulations. Both stereotypes are false. Christianity owes more than it is willing to believe to Judaism. But the origins of Christianity lie in Judaism. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. Christianity is a branch off the tree of Judaism.

None of the first Christians were Christians. They were Jews. Jews who happened to believe that a certain man, who hailed from Natzeret, was the promised Mashiakh, come to rid the world of all evil human kingdoms and install the godly kingdom on earth of peace and justice. They were not Christians—in the modern sense of the word. They did not believe that Jesus was their personal savior who died for them so that they could go to heaven when they died. In the only sense of the word that they could be called Christians—was that they were talmidim of a man who claimed to be, and they believed to be, the Mashiakh. Maskiah is Hebrew for anointed. G-d promised to anoint a ruler who would rule on the seat of the Jewish king David with righteousness and justice. The Greek word for anointed is Χριστος. So Χριστος + ians. Christians. Followers of the anointed one. And they weren’t just any followers—groupies, fans, watchers from afar. They were talmidim. Students. Scrupulous studiers. Learners. Imitators—even to the exact detail. Talmidim follow a rabbi. They were Jewish. They saw him as rabbi, teacher, and Mashiakh—not personal savior.

Now of course saving from evil was an attribute they could apply to Mashiakh, but their perspective on saving was more holistic. While it was on an individual level (that is, each person had an individual commitment to be talmid of Yeshua), the salvation they knew of was nothing short of the re-creation of the whole world. They were not going anywhere when they died. They were staying here. They were healing the world, here. They were repairing the world, now. They believed Mashiakh was bringing heaven to earth. And they were following him in that endeavor. The Jewish sages have a term for this: tikkun olam, healing the world. Because the early Christians were actually Jews and the Jewish goal of life (which happens to be G-d’s goal) is to repair the world back to the way he intended it.

The first Christians were Jews. They attended Synagogue. And Yeshua, as was his custom, went to the synagogue in Natsaret on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read (Luke 4). Jesus went to synagogue—every Saturday or Friday evening. Jesus never went to church. Jesus’ followers never went to church. Church comes later. (As the followers began forming their own sect within Judaism, they began assembling together in their homes – see the Acts of the Apostles for more information.)

Jesus’ followers were ethnically Jewish, living in a Jewish region, interacting with Jewish people (and some Romans), reading Jewish texts, living Jewish lives, eating, breathing, living Jewish. Which means Torah. Which means G-d. Which means repairing the world. Which means here and now. Not then and there. On that bright day when the Lord takes me home—No. That’s eighteenth-century Christianity. Not Judaism. Not the early followers of Yeshua.

There was nothing—nothing—nothing—nothing “Christian” about the early followers of Yeshua. They weren’t even trying to start something new. They were simply teaching, as was their custom, from the Torah that Yeshua was the Mashiakh.

What happened was that, since the early talmidim preached that G-d was reconciling all people to himself—including goyyim, that gentiles began becoming talmidim. This was in the second and third generations and later after Yeshua ascended. Actually, it was not even until Acts chapter 10 that the talmidim even preached Yeshua to the goyyim at all. That’s about twenty years! For twenty years after Yeshua, the message of G-d reconciling, repairing, the world thru Yeshua was only preached to Jews! No one else. Only Jews. But then something funny happened. G-d gave Cephas (his Aramaic name, which means little rock. His Greek name was Petros, which also means little rock) a vision that goyyim were to receive the message too. So he preached to the household of a Roman centurion named Cornelius—and the family believed, they trusted the message, they decided they wanted to be talmidim and be a part of G-d’s reconciliation effort.

So the goyyim were learning how to be talmidim of a Jewish Mashiakh—not a Christian one. The goyyim—who were Greeks and Romans—began coming to the Jewish assemblies (separate from the synagogues – this was where, as I mentioned above, Yeshua’s talmidim were assemble at home to meet together). So as more and more goyyim and more and more Jews were adding daily to their number, they began meeting in larger places. Then issues of Jewish law came up—do I have to be circumcised? Why? Why not? The Jewish talmidim decided that gentile followers of Yeshua only have to abstain from fornication (porneia), from blood, from food offered to idols, and from what has been strangled (Acts 15).

So there was this increasing misunderstanding between the relation of gentiles and Jews in G-d’s new creation order. And some people began preaching that one had to follow all the laws in the Torah to be reconciled with G-d. Others said that the laws in the Torah don’t matter—they’re old, obsolete, primitive. Well, neither is the truth—and this debate is still a debate today (faith vs. works).

Anyways, in a tragic turn of events, probably the end of the first century, the assembly of talmidim, which became what we know as the church, began to have way more gentiles than Jews. Which means that it was no longer Jews preaching the message as in the early days, since gentiles were replacing them. And the gentiles thought the Jews were kinda weird anyway, with all the laws they “had” to follow. And some Jewish Christian groups developed composed only of Jews and they required everybody to keep all the Torah, as we mentioned above. So the now gentile Christian majority began to see Jews as weird, legalistic, backwards—not trusting Yeshua.

And then from the Jews side—non-messianic Jews, those that did not see Yeshua as the Maskiah began trying to argue that Yeshua was not the messiah. And so then the Christian church and the Jews became polarized – and the messianic/Christian Jews were stuck in between, relegated to the stereotype of Judaizers and legalists.

So by the end of the first century, Christianity was its own, fledging religion—whose basis was in Judaism, but whose form and content was increasingly not, as the gentiles began bringing in non-Jewish beliefs from their original religions.

One of these beliefs was from Plato. Plato taught that the world was bad and the spirit was good. Others expanded this to mean that the god who created the world (whom they called the demiurge) was an evil, fleshly god. This got incorporated into other religious ideas and began syncretized with Christianity to form the believe that the god who created this world (yhwh) was evil, and that the good god was higher than that, and that our spirits are sparks from the divine primordial creation, which have to be released from their body-prison through knowledge, so that the sparks can return to their source, the higher god. This was called Gnosticism. The Jews, however, believed that all of life was good, a blessing from YHWH. And they also believed that YHWH was good. And they believed that the body is good. And the spirit is good. They are two parts to the same reality. Two sides of the same coin. You are a holistic person—with a good body and good soul. None of it is bad. You are good. And Elohim saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good. You are very good. You are very good. Good, with sin. Good, with a fall. Good, with evil. But you are good. The fall of mankind happened. But that did not take away from the goodness with which G-d created you. It did not change the elements with which you were made. It did not transform you into an evil being. You are good. The fall only added to sin to your goodness. It only covered it up. It only soiled the mirror.

Now you know good and evil. You ate the apple. You disobeyed G-d. Now life is going to be hard. There will be pain, and longing, and subordination; and cursed ground, and thorns and thistles, and sweat, and—dust. For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Now Jesus wants to take the dust and dirt that covers you and wipe it all off. He wants to see the imago Dei in you clearly—not soiled. He wants to restore to you to what he created you—as an image-bearer of him. As someone who wants his will done on earth and who will do it. Someone who will co-labor with him as co-heirs, co-stewards, and co-creators in the world. Yeshua wants to give you a bath. Will you let him? Will you accept the invitation to engage in the godly, divine, glorious task of tikkun olam, repairing the world, which he is working on right now? Will you join him? If you do, there will be a reward. It will be nothing short of heaving coming to earth. And that is a glorious thought indeed.

My Relationship with Soil

This is what I turned in for my first soils assignment. :) Sorry, the mother's womb / earth metaphor may be a little strange, but creative maybe??

Joshua Johnson

Dr. Cathy Perillo

Soils 201—Soil: A Living System

3 September 2014

My Relationship with Soil

            Soil and I go way back. In fact, I think I came from soil straight from my mother’s womb.  I probably am part soil. Well, we all come from soil, do we not? I played in it a lot, and I loved getting dirty. I still do loving getting dirty. I didn’t know I was still capable of playing in soil, but I found myself “planting” some canned worms into one of our garden beds and began to pour water in the hole and make mud. Then I got it all over my hands. And it was great.

            I love digging holes in soil. I used to dig holes to (a) reach China and (b) find dinosaur bones. I never made it to China, but I did find some chicken bones. It is fun to dig a deep hole with a big, ol’ shovel. To see the different colors of soil coming out as you dig farther down (what I know now as horizons). And it is always fun to get to the dark soil below the surface – that’s a happy moment right there. It’s like finding gold. Gardener’s gold. I used to just dig holes, leave them open for a while, and then fill them in sometime later.

            I have also done lots of gardening, so I love soil. I made raised beds at one of my old homes and had to pick up some topsoil from a place that sells dirt and then pour it into the beds. Then, I placed gardening mix/soil where I was planting the vegetables. Over here in Pullman, I made another vegetable garden in the middle of the lawn. I laid down some cardboard over the lawn, followed by compost from WSU, raw manure from a local farm, and some more cardboard and soil and then I let nature do her thing! Now, I have a rich, nice bed for growing vegetables and I didn’t even have to dig up the lawn!

            Whenever I weed, I try to shake off as much dirt from the roots as I can. Even though this action adds time to the process, I believe it is valuable to keep the soil where it’s from and also to not lose too much soil to the yard waste! It’s important to me to keep the soil intact.

            In the future, I plan to further my relationship with soil. I want to have a family farm someday, with livestock, orchard trees, vegetables, and pasture. Soil will therefore continue to remain valuable to me and close to my heart. I will learn more about the benefits of organic matter, how to increase soil tilth, and how to manage soil with livestock. I would like to implement a rotational grazing system for the animals, so as to keep them from eating the soil bare. In that way, whenever they eat the grass down in one area, I will move them to the next area so that the grass can regrow during their absence and the soil will remain covered and will protect against erosion and loss of fertility. I also want to have a really deep tilth horizon. (Don’t all plant-growers?) One of our neighbors has some really rich soil for their garden bed. The previous owners of their place had laid organic matter, compost, and manure each year – now it’s about four-foot-deep tilth! I want that sort of soil someday.

            And then one day, when my relationship with soil has reached its fullness, I will return to the womb of my mother and be laid in the earth. I will go to whence I came and come home. My body will decay in the bosom of the earth and maggots and worms and insects will eat my flesh. On that day, my body will provide fertility, sustenance, and life to the world through death. And I will be assured that my death will bring life to the soil wherever my body rests. And I will then be part of the soil and the soil part of me. And that is a secure thought indeed.

The Life of Pi and Hebrew Teshuqah

I just finished watching The Life of Pi for the second time, this time on DVD. This film is beautifully made with stunning visual effects and is the height of special effects. Producer Ang Lee, with this film, raises film-making to an artform. In age where films come out of our ears, Life of Pi is sure to remain a classic. The scenes shot from above, of the lifeboat floating amidst a water-sky utopia, flow like the pen of skillful Chinese calligrapher upon a parchment scroll - I think the effect of Chinese wallpaper was intended. Watching the film is like a cathartic, zen experience.

The storyline is also amazing. It has family, a love, survival, determination, friendship, adventure - all elements in a good plot.

The film makes me wish I could live in France or India, or French India. And the beautiful rendering of Indian culture is a testament to the ingenuity of human culture and lifeways.

The film ends with the adult Pi retelling the writer Yann Martel (the author of the book) an alternative version of the story.

In the first story, Pi escapes from the ship on a lifeboat. A zebra jumps off the sinking ship and breaks his leg in the lifeboat. An orangutan, a tiger, and an hyena are also aboard. The hyena eats the zebra and the oranguatan, Orange Juice. The tiger eats the hyena. The tiger and Pi survive.

In the alternative story, Pi escapes from the sinking ship on a lifeboat accompanied with his mother, the ship's cook, and a vegetarian, Buddhist sailor. The cook kills the Buddhist sailor to use his leg as bait and kills Pi's mom. Pi kills the cook and he alone survives.

After Pi tells Martel the second version, Martel is stunned. Pi asks Martel a question:

Can I ask you a question? Which story do you prefer?

Martel responds that of course he likes the first story, the one with the tiger. Pi says, in the ultimate statement of the movie,

So it goes with God.

I do not wish to speak regarding the theological aspects of this film because they seem too convoluted to me. I do not know if Yann Martel wished to advocate the idea that all religions ultimately lead to God. All I know is that Pi repeatedly refers to God as an all-powerful, compassionate, transcendent, immanent, and beautiful deity, prays to Krishna, Christ, and Vishnu at various times as well as God, and refers to himself as a Hindu, a Christian (Catholic, specifically), and a Muslim. In each of these religions, Pi learns more about God - but none is enough solely on its own, according to him. Aspects of each religion (beauty from Hinduism, self-sacrificial love from Christianity, and disciplined ritual prayer from Islam) all help him to have a fuller view of God. Whether this view is correct or not is not what I wish to speak about.

What I do want to talk about is the alternative version of the story. In that story,

• the cook = the hyena
• the Buddhist sailor = the zebra
• Pi's mother = Orange Juice, the Orangutan
• Pi = the tiger

The tiger kills the hyena. Pi kills the cook. At that moment in the film, the boy Pi is about to slash the hyena when all the sudden from his direction the tiger, before hidden, leaps from his side of the ship and slays the hyena. At this moment, Pi's survival instinct is unleashed.

When I saw this scene for the second time, I instantly thought of a concept representative of this force in every person's heart in the Hebrew Bible. It is called teshuqah. It is used three times in the Hebrew Bible. The basic idea is of this force within every human heart, that could be dangerous, but if controlled is life-giving.

The Hebrew alphabet originally had pictographic meaning. For example, the first letter, alef (א), meant ox. The second letter, beith (ב), meant tent. So on and so forth. In each word, the reader can combine the letters to decipher the meaning behind the word. The word teshuqah (תְּשׁוּקָה) has the letters Taw (ת), Shin (ש), Waw (ו), Qof (ק), and Hey (ה).

• Taw (ת) = sign, seal, or covenant
• Shin (ש) = teeth (devour)
• Waw (ו) = nail or peg (secure)
• Qof (ק) = back of someone's head
• Hey (ה) = marker of the feminine; what comes from; behold or reveal

Combined, the word teshuqah means "what comes from the devouring seal attached to the back of the head." While this combination may seem like nonsense, it means that one's teshuqah is in the back of our our head (it follows us wherever we go) and could either devour or could make a covenant. It has the dual function of destroying like teeth or becoming the seal of a covenant that is attached, like a peg, forever. In short, your teshuqah can either make you or break you.

The first instance occurs after YHWH, 'Elohim, curses the serpent. YHWH tells the woman,

And to your husband will be your teshuqah and he shall have dominion over you. (Genesis 3:16)

In this instance, teshuqah refers to the woman's desire for her husband. Her teshuqah can have the dual purpose of either devouring her husband (i.e., a nagging woman is like a constant dripping, or being very critical of her husband) or being stuck to him in an everlasting covenant.

The second instance occurs in the next chapter, with Qayin (Cain). After YHWH sees that Qayin is not lifting up his face (i.e., is downcast) because YHWH did not favor Qayin's offering as much as He favored Hevel's offering (Abel), 'Elohim tells him that he needs to control his own teshuqah, otherwise sin will result. YHWH says to Qayin,

After all, if you do well, will there not be a lifting up (of your face)? And if you do not do well, sin lurks at the door. And to you is its (or, his) teshuqah, and you shall have dominion over it (or, him). (Genesis 4:7).

In both occurences, the object of the teshuqah shall have dominion over the subject of the teshuqah. In the first, the woman has teshuqah for her husband and he rules her. In this case, sin has teshuqah for Qayin and Qayin has to gain dominion over sin.

In this case, YHWH encourages Qayin to not feel self-pity even though He had not regarded Qayin's offering. Instead of self-pity, Qayin could have his face lifted up, that is, YHWH could accept him. And it's an "of-course" formula in Hebrew. If Qayin "does well," YHWH will accept him. But if Qayin does not do well (dwelling in self-pity, doubt, and not receiving YHWH's love), then sin will master him and Qayin will have to battle it for the rest of his life.

Qayin has the decision to turn sin's teshuqah from destroying him to mastering sin. By murdering Hevel, Qayin lets sin's teshuqah master him, instead of mastering it, and now Qayin has to deal with the rest of his life. Qayin chose a life of perpetual war over a life of perpetual peace, ruling over teshuqah.

The third and final instances occurs in the erotic poem the Song of Songs. This poem narrates a beloved's exclamations of love for her lover. Church theologians have read the Songs of Songs as an allegory between Christ and His people, which is undoubtedly a spiritual truth, but is not the literal meaning of the Greatest of Songs (in Hebraic thought, X of X means that X is the greatest in its class). Near the end of the poem, the beloved exclaims in delight,

I am to my beloved, and upon me (or, concerning me) is his teshuqah. (Song of Songs 7:11)

The beloved states that she belongs to her lover (not in a patriarchal sense, but in a relational sense) and that her lover's teshuqah is directed towards her. The lover has mastered this wild force and now, in the reversal of the Fallen reality of Genesis 3, the lover no longer rules his wife but instead has mutual desire for her. He has funneled, channeled this wild, seemingly untamable force into covenantal ardor for his wife. Because he directed his teshuqah to covenant and not to destruction, it can only be beneficial - and the result is covenanted love between them two. If we read the allegorical interpretation, Christ will, in the eskhaton (the end time), be married to His bride, His people and has directed His teshuqah from divine wrath into covenantal eternity with His people, come about by His self-sacrificial death for His people.

In summary of the Biblical occurences of the word, Hawwah (Eve) let her teshuqah devour her husband in condescension. Qayin let teshuqah run wild and he ended up murdering his brother. But the Song shows that in the perfect, ideal married state, the husband has harnessed his teshuqah into love for his wife. Instead of letting the devouring part of teshuqah master him, he has harnessed the covenant-making aspect of teshuqah. He is committed to his wife for life.

Now to Pi again. The tiger represents Pi's teshuqah. When the tiger slays the hyena, Pi releases his teshuqah in a fit of rage. This teshuqah ends up posing the possibility for his destruction, e.g., the flesh-eating island is an example of what could have happened when his teshuqah eats away at himself. But instead, he tames his teshuqah, delineating the proper boundaries where the tiger must stay. He channels his teshuqah for his survival. That is why he says he could not survive without the tiger, Richard Parker. His teshuqah has the potential for limitless creative activity, if tamed. Pi funneled his teshuqah into creative potential. So literally he could not have survived without this creative ability. His creative ability, manifested in making the raft, training the tiger, using his supplies resourcefully, allowed him to survive.

When he lands in Mexico, Pi's teshuqah vanishes. He does not need the survival instinct, his creativity has been stretched - his teshuqah fades into the background. Now that Pi has funneled his teshuqah towards creativity rather than self-destruction - he has passed the test - he has mastered his teshuqah, he has gained dominion over it.

It is unthinkable that Ang Lee knew about this Hebraic concept. Nevertheless, because of our shared reality, humans universally know things about humanity, things that G-d has put in our hearts.

What will you do with your teshuqah? Limitless ability to be creative and to do good, or the potential to allow wild passion dominate you in a fit of rage. Which story do you prefer?

I am indebted to Dr. Frank Seekins, Hebrew Word Pictures, for the analysis of the Hebrew pictographic elements; to the writings of Skip Moen, especially Guardian Angel: The Biblical Role of Women; and to my friend Zeke from church for giving me the idea that Richard Parker the tiger represents Pi's other side, the side that he has to overcome. And most of all Yeshua haMashiakh, creator of all things, through whom and by whom all things exist and in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, who gives me a love of learning and all I do and know and by whom I have conquered the world and who delivered me from Satan, death, and sin into His marvelous light, to Him be glory and power and dominion into ages of ages אמן.

First Published Journal Article!

Hello blog-followers! So after a long period of research, I submitted my article to the Journal of Applied Microfauna (Atheneum Press), and they notified me today that it was accepted for publication! Here is the abstract. Enjoy!

            Several recent studies have shown that the bacteriopathogen Centaurus bacillifens is unique to stromatal development. The present paper shows that when viewed from the telomeric perspective, the subanterior central cortex of Centaurus species appears to be distillate and right-directionated. This research can lead to advances in gonadal understanding.

How I Have Felt for a While Now

Joshua Johnson

Dr. John Reganold

Soil Science 101

3 April 2014

Why I Want to Farm Organically

For thousands of years, humans grew crops using their own hands, their own livestock, and their own simple tools. In the years following the Great War, statesmen declared that food production needed to increase. Coupled with the Industrial Revolution, the United States government subsequently subsidized big agriculture in order to produce food for millions, both domestically, for Americans, and abroad, for the European nations recovering from the World Wars. At this time, farmers, government officials, and the people traded quality for quantity.

From the vantage point from which we stand today, this decision to industrialize farming seems foolhardy, especially to those of us who value health over hard cash. It is not really the mechanization that represents the problem, but the synthetic materials lavishly applied to our crops nowadays — insecticides, pesticides, fertilizers, and most recently, transgenes.

I want to do organic agriculture for a reason that may be more romantic than realistic — to get back to nature. I want to work with the land to see how this amazing world works. I want to follow the seasons. I want to walk in the path in which our ancestors have walked for millennia. It may be more out of dissatisfaction with the suburbia in which I grew up and a yearning for something more, but it is still something that I want to do. I am tired of sitting cooped up inside, studying. I am going blind due to the computer. I want to be free. I want to be outdoors. I could become a wilderness ranger or I could go Into the Wild, but unless I can forge or hunt, I probably would not be able to procure food. So organic farming presents itself as the next best thing. I can be outside, enjoying nature, while working at the same time, and producing food for the future. Not only would I be feeding myself, but also my family, friends, community, and world. I would also be contributing to the overall health of the world, since I would not be spraying Round-Up, which is inundating the world and taking a long time to break down. I would not be spreading transgenics into the environment. I would be replenishing and building the soil. I would be preserving genetic flora diversity. I would be tending animals and allowing them to run free and roam around in rotations. The livestock would aerate the soil and poop and pee, producing nitrogen and nutrients for the fields. I would move the livestock each day. And I would feel rewarded for doing all this work and receiving a crop at the end.

In short, it may be romantic, but it is one of the few lifestyles I can actually imagine myself doing. And I would be learning daily, and would be living a beautiful life. To summarize, I want to farm organically to provide healthy food for the world, to do satisfying work, and to fill up my senses with God’s good, green world. What more could a man want?

Thoughts on the Son of God Movie

Today, I watched the Son of God movie. I thought it was a faithful retelling of the Gospel narrative, which fell prey, at times, to the traditional Western, yet not always accurate, rendition of Jesus, while at other times offered some refreshing emphases and surprises.

I shall not need tell of its faithful points, because one can look that up in the Gospels themselves. As for it's points that were faithful to the Western understanding of the text, and not the cultural context of the text, I will briefly state.

Jesus' name. First, and this is not a critique of the movie, so much as a critique of the Western understanding of the Bible, divorced from its Jewish heritage, was Jesus' name. Everyone knows His name was Jesus. Right? Wrong. His name was not Jesus, which is a Latinized transliteration of a Greek term which means nothing, which, itself is another transliteration of the G-d-Man's real, Hebrew/Aramaic name. (There is some scholarly uncertainty whether the name is originally Hebrew or its sister language Aramaic--both of which could have been spoken by the commoners in His day.) His name was, and is, Yeshua (Yay-SHOO-ah), in English letters; in Hebrew letters, יֵשׁוּעַ . יֵשׁוּעַ means "Salvation," "Deliverance," or "Redemption," and is derived from the Hebrew word for Joshua: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Yehoshuah, which means "YHWH is salvation" or "YHWH saves." So when the Wise Men asked Miryam what the Child's name is, in the movie, she responds, "Jesus," which means absolutely nothing in terms of grammatical significance (but the name means a lot in terms of other significances—spiritual, religious, historical, and intellectual). More conducive would be if she responded "Salvation," and if—though it would fast become pedantic—every "Jesus" in our English Bibles to "Salvation" or "Deliverance," since that is what His name means. Call me heretical, but I don't like calling Him Jee-zuz, I prefer Yeshua.
- Second, in the infancy narrative, Yeshua is again born in a barn, which did not happen. Not that He was not born, but He was not born in a barn. I read an article on this matter, which revealed to me that Middle Eastern homes had two rooms—one room for the humans that was a platform, and the entrance room which was the stable, for the animals. One would enter the house, into the stable, and then ascend the small flight of stairs to the human living area. The stable was divided from the living space by (1) a small drop-off, (2) a fence or wooden bar, and (3) a manger. The Middle Eastern manger was a hollow in the cement, into which the cattle could stick their noses into the human area and from which they could eat. So that changes the picture a slight bit, but this fault is not particular to the movie, but to our Western tradition.
- Third, the wise men, according to the Biblical account, did not come the night of Yeshua's birth, but when He was a bit older.

Now onto the positives of the movie.

For one thing, the movie did a very good job of showing the plight of the Jewish people during occupied Yisrael. For example, the film shows ogre-like Roman centurions pushing over a halted cart during Pilate's arrival to Yerushalayim, crushing the young boy on top. The mothers and family mourn. At other times, the Romans rush into the Jewish towns and kill people who were resisting taxes. At another time, the Romans, in order to quell any rebellion, slaughter a host of Jewish people during one of Pilate's public "talks." The film clearly shows the power play at work and it is obvious that Rome is a big problem for the Jews.

Second, and relatedly, the film shows that the high priest, Caiaphas, and his Pharisees were scheming early on to destroy Yeshua. The reason? Because they feared that Pilate would kill more Jews if Yeshua or His followers did anything radical. The film shows the human side of both Caiaphas and Pilate. For Caiaphas, I, at least, could see the understandable desire to safeguard the continuance of the Jewish people. One Pharisee that Yeshua repeatedly encounters says something to the effect of, "We have tried so hard to keep our customs, our faith, our nation alive, and then this guy." In truth, Caiaphas did urge the death of one man, Yeshua, in order to safeguard the continued presence of the whole people. As the Yochanan (John) recorded in his Gospel, "But it was Qaypha who counseled the Jews that it was better that one man should die for the sake of the nation" (John 18:14, Aramaic Bible in Plain English). Caiaphas understood, if not on a spiritual level, that Yeshua had to die, in some sense, for the people. (According to Christian theology, instead of the people, so they did not have to die, and for the sins, so that they did not have to die for their own sins, but He did.)

Another feature was unique about this film was that Mary Magdalene is included as one of the gang, that is, one of the Twelve disciples. I have never really thought of her as following Yeshua around everywhere with the rest of His disciples, but I suppose it might have been so. Luke reported, "It happened after these things that Yeshua was traveling a circuit in the cities and villages and preaching and announcing the Kingdom of God and his twelve were with him and these women who had been healed from sicknesses and from evil spirits: Maryam who is called Magdalitha, she from whom seven demons had gone out" (Luke 8:1-2).

Another feature that I really enjoyed about this film portrayal was that it showed Yeshua in a Jewish light. This Jewish portrayal is good because of the simple fact that Jesus/Yeshua was (and is) Jewish and a Jew. In the film, it shows Him going to synagogue, taking the Torah scroll, unrolling it, reading it, and speaking a midrash regarding the text that He read. A midrash is a Jewish interpretive take on a passage, which goes beyond the plain meaning of the text and tries to infer another meaning. In this case, even though the text He read did not say "Yeshua" or directly point to Him, His midrash interpreted that the prophecy was, indeed, about Him.

At other times, the film showed the Jews speaking berakhot(h), blessings. The barukh that I enjoyed the most was the one that Nikodemus spoke over Yeshua's dead body, while the women anointed, washed, and wrapped Him. Berakhot are spoken by Jews during any situation for which they would praise G-d. Whenever the Gospels say that Yeshua "blessed" the food or the children, it means, due to the cultural context, that He spoke a barukh over it. The barukh I know the most is "Barukh atah Adonai, malek haOlam, asher kidshanu vamitsvotav" ("Blessed are You, O LORD, king of all the earth, who makes us holy by His mitsvoth, that is, His commandments" - this blessing is even true regarding Yeshua because Yeshua made us holy and He perfectly kept every mitsvoth revealed by G-d in the Torah.)

As a whole, then, this film was an intriguing, fresh take on the life of the greatest Man who ever lived, Who also happened to be G-d Himself, for which He was executed for blasphemy.

While watching, I could not help but think, "When God comes to earth, the people kill Him." Humans killed God. What wondrous love is this!

Faith and Grace

Who would have thought that reading the introduction volume to The Great Books of the Western World, The Great Conversation: The Substance of a Liberal Education (Moritmer J. Alder, ed., 1st ed., 54 vols.,  Chicago: Britannica, 1952) and then browsing the Syntopica, the index of the great ideas of the Western world such as love, money, angel, theology, mathematics, God, infinity, eternity, causation, some and other, one and many, et cetera ad nauseum ad infinitum, would be a good thing to do enjoy the ereb Shabat (Heb. "evening of rest") of the Memorial Day Weekend? Apparently, I did.

Well, as I floundered through these dense topics, I stumbled upon religion, where, to my dismay, the author basically says that faith is not a gift, but is man's will to believe in a god.

The author wrote, "Religion can be supernatural only for those whose faith declares it so. Those who deny that it is supernatural may offer many reasons for thinking so, and try in many ways to explain away faith. What they all come to is that it is an allusion to suppose faith is God's gift rather than man's own will to believe. To the man of faith this only means that his critic lacks the gift of faith or even the wish to have it" (2: 466, ch. 79, "Religion," s.v., "Introduction").

On the next page, the author cites Hobbes being slightly heterodox. "[F]aith is a gift of God," Hobbes says, "which man can neither give nor take away by promises of rewards or menaces of torture," because faith depends "only upon certainty or probability of arguments drawn from reason or from something men believe already." Faith, Hobbes says, does not come "by supernatural inspiration or infusion," but "by education, discipline, correction, and other natural ways, by which God worketh them in his elect, as such time as he thinketh fit." "Consequently," Hobbes writes, "when we believe that the Scriptures are the word of God, having no immediate revelation from God himself, our belief, faith, and trust is in the Church, whose word we take, and acquiesce therein" (qtd. in 2: 468-9).

When Hobbes says that faith is a gift of God and then that faith does not come by supernatural inspiration or infusion, does he contradict himself? Is not a gift of God only through supernatural means?

Awww...but no, apparently not. Other gifts of God such as love, food, music, and the creation are not necessarily spiritual per se.

Or we can erase the mind-body dualism from platonic thought and instead take the Hebraic (Biblical) view that all of life is sacred! There is nothing in life that is secular or religious; it is all religious. It just depends on whom one is worshiping, their heart (intent, attitude), and what they are doing. (Sinning would be still be religious, not secular, -- since one is worshiping either oneself or Satan -- but it's still bad -- so just because nothing is secular does not mean everything is good.)

Anyway, what I wanted to talk about was faith in the Bible. So I grabbed my concordance and found a few verses.

The first was from Paul's epistle to the ekklesia living at Rome. He writes after his long greeting and introduction (in Eng. trans.), "For righteousness of God  in Him/it  was revealed/uncovered/unveiled from(in, by, with)  faith/-fulness/trust  into(to, toward, with a view to, aiming at)  faith/-fulness/trust,  just as it has been written, 'Now  the one who is righteous/the righteous one  from(in, by, with)  faith/-fulness/trust  shall live'" (my trans.). "δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται." 

The slashes show the various ways the Greek could be translated. The ἐν αὐτῷ can be either the dative singular masculine or neuter, so, "in him" or "in it." Πιστος, faith, can be either one's faith or trust or one's faithfulness. And the preposition of origin, ἐκ, can be "from, in, by, with," while the preposition of direction into, εἰς , can be "into, onto, in, to, toward, with a view to, aiming at."

So what we have here is that God's righteousness was revealed. It was revealed in either Him (i.e., Jesus) or it (i.e., the good news). The origin of this revelation was faith. The end goal of this revelation was faith. Which is why some translations say, "beginning and ending in faith."
Now, since faith can be faithfulness, there are four (five) logical options:

1. God's righteousness was revealed by God's faithfulness to us and its end goal is also His faithfulness to us.
2. God's righteousness was revealed by God's faithfulness to us and its end goal is our faith or trust in Him.
3. God's righteousness was revealed by our faith and trust in Him and its end goal is our faith or trust in Him.
4. God's righteousness was revealed by our our faith and trust in Him and its end goal is His faithfulness.
5. Or, all, some, or none of these.

I like them all. Isn't it amazing how rich implication can be?

And the next clause, the righteous one from faith shall live. From his own faithfulness (to God) he shall live. From his own faith in God he shall live. From God's faith in him he shall live. From God's faithfulness to him he shall live.