The Law: Was it so Hard

[liamconnor]

Protestant branches of Christianity present ancient Judaism as an impossible religion in which members are always in despair because they can never obey the law. Out of this assessment arises the value of Christianity: The Jewish Law is impossible to fulfill; but good news, one does not have to fulfill it!

Question: Is the Jewish Law really that hard? I have read the O.T. several times. I have read much of Rabbinic Law. None of it seems terribly hard.

[JehovahsWitness]

just as I do not agree with the rabbi's prohibition against using it, I do not agree with the JWs' insistence that it be used.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not "insist" on anyone doing anything they are uncomfortable with and respect everyone's right to choose their words as they will. If someone never wants to use God's name or wish to freely and openly mention the name of Moses or Abraham (rarely if ever replacing such names with titles such as "Prophet") but only use the Divine Name if they absolutely cannot avoid it, that's their choice. They are free not to do so and we respect their right to so decide. We do however "insist" on our right to speak truth and educate people (to "raise awareness") as to who the True God is, and what place His name holds in the minds and hearts of those that love Him.

It was Jesus for example (not the Jehovah's Witnesses) that "insisted" that the Father's name be "hallowed" /honored and we are simply relaying the message. Sadly personal experience has shown me this is necessary as, when I ask people what name Jesus wished to be hallowed, it is not unusual for people not to be able to answer or say that name is "God" or "Jesus/Yeshua" it is a rare day indeed when people of the general public reply "Jehovah/Yaweh (YHWH)" and I cannot help but feel this is in part because of the Christian movement to minimalize the importance of name of God.

The scriptures are abundandly clear how lovers of Jah/Yah have historically felt about the name, since they have understood the Divine Name represented the Divine Person.

EZEKIEL 38:28

I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’

God's people have traditionally reflected its import by incorporating that name in their own personal names, place names and dedications. The name "Elijah" for example means "My God is JAH" (YHWH). It does not mean "My God is Adonai/The Lord"

Further it is grossly misrepresenting scripture to indicate that the Divine Name was of little import and did not serve to identify the unique nature of the God of the Abraham Isaac and Jacob or was a mere "placeholder", an insignificant collection of random letters without meaning. The name means "He causes to become" and reflects the Creators ability to do and be anything He so wishes for the accomplishment of his purpose.

This name was not merely used to distinguish the True God from false gods but was an integral part of worship.

PSALMS 22:22

I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I praise thee. - Douay-Rheims Bible

CONCLUSION Jehovah's Witnesses do not insist that the Divine name be used to the exclusion of other fitting titles. Nor do we seek to control the personal discourse of others, we merely take seriously the honor and responsibility we have to educate people as to the identity of the True God and expose practices and traditions that fail to accord the Divine Name its rightful place in scripture, prayer and worship.

MICAH 4:5
For all the peoples will walk every one in the name of his god; but we will walk in the name of Jehovah, our God for ever and ever. - Darby Bible Translation

1 CHRONICLES 29:13
“O our God, we thank you and praise your beautiful name �

PSALM 86:12
“I will glorify YOUR NAME to time indefinite.�

[bluethread]

I suppose all of those things could be considered "idols" or they, like the name of God, can be embraced as links to the Divine.

One can look at all of these things, or some anyway, as tangable gifts from an Almighty and invisible God, as ways for His finite creatures to embrace Him and relate to Him.

That is true. Though it is easier to just check off a box and consider the job done, that is not what we are built for. One of the serious problems with idols is that they make us lazy. Eating bread by the sweat of our brows is not a curse, but a blessing.

[JehovahsWitness]

That said, I follow this practice out of deference to the rabbinic tradition, not the RCC tradition.

Why?

Is there any indication in SCRIPTURE that replacing the Divine Name with a title is what God desires?

How did Jesus feel about Rabonnic traditions that violated scriptural law and principle?

Are you saying that it is a violation of Scriptural law to replace YHWH with "the Divine Name" or "God"? If not, why is the use of Adonai any different?

I said scriptural law or principle and yes, it violates bible principle to deliberately remove the Divine Name from scripture and replace it with an alternative which carries a different meaning.

It also violates bible principle to deliberately misquote scripture, which reading a scripture but replacing a name with another name or word that carries a different meaning would do.

DEUTERONOMY 4:2
You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding you.

2 JOHN 9
9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son.

CONCLUSION It carries no spiritual merit for ones discourse or theology to be influenced by anti-scriptual traditions rabbonic or otherwise.

[bluethread]

I said scriptural law or principle and yes, it violates bible principle to deliberately remove the Divine Name from scripture and replace it with an alternative which carries a different meaning.

It also violates bible principle to deliberately misquote scripture, which reading a scripture but replacing a name with another name or word that carries a different meaning would do.

DEUTERONOMY 4:2
You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding you.

2 JOHN 9
9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son.

CONCLUSION It carries no spiritual merit for ones discourse or theology to be influenced by anti-scriptual traditions rabbonic or otherwise.

Oh, so you are talking about quoting the Scriptures. You should have said so. I got the impression that you were refering to any reference to YHWH at any time. So, isn't it a problem that the translation you chose for 2 John 9 uses the word "God" instead of YHWH?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 83 by bluethread]


Why should that be a problem?

Evidently, like you bible societies have chosen to refuse to mention God's name unless absolutely necessary. Many deem it necessary zero times, thus obscuring the identity of the True God for millions of people.



40 min Bible Lecture: Nicholas Ahladis: “The Word of God Is Not Bound�
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODPgm ... 4_12_VIDEO

[bluethread]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

That is an interesting link. However, it's primary focus was more on promotion of your denomination and the New World Translation than on the topic at hand. Are you arguing that I should exclusively quote from the New World Translation, or that I insert the term YHWH into any quote of a verse in which that term appears? That latter is possible, but what of the Apostolic Writings, in which the term YHWH does not appear? Did the Apostles not agree with you with regard to using YHWH? With regard to the New World Translation, it hardly seems reasonable to use a particular translation exclusively because of it's use of a particular term, and a transliteration at that.

[shnarkle]

Protestant branches of Christianity present ancient Judaism as an impossible religion in which members are always in despair because they can never obey the law. Out of this assessment arises the value of Christianity: The Jewish Law is impossible to fulfill; but good news, one does not have to fulfill it!

Question: Is the Jewish Law really that hard? I have read the O.T. several times. I have read much of Rabbinic Law. None of it seems terribly hard.

The Mosaic law in and of itself isnt' really difficult at all. What's difficult is life. If one were to spend most of their life alone or didn't really do much at all, they wouldn't encounter much difficulty in keeping much of the law. The problem arises when we begin to interact with people

The real problem isn't really keeping the law at all, but why one keeps the law. This is where most people lose the thread of Paul's argument completely. People hear Paul point out that no one is jusfified or made righteous by keeping the Mosaic law and immediately think that he's suggesting that the Mosaic law is done away with. When one reviews Paul's letters and the accounts of this debate in the Acts of the Apostles it should become clear that it was a big problem for him as well. People just didn't seem to be able to follow his agument and he was always having to point out that the law wasn't done away with, even to the point of going to Jerusalem along with some others who were there to keep a ceremonial vow.

Jesus gets to the heart of the matter by pointing out that on the surface it isn't really difficult to keep the law, but deep down inside we're all born into this ontological state of defilement which makes it impossible for us to keep the law in our heart. Therefore any and all attempts to keep the law are only for show. We're just carrying out these acts of charity to justify ourselves. It is only after one is "born again" that one has a heart to keep God's law, and that heart is there for the express reason of keeping God's law. This is evident in Paul's letter to the Hebrews with his reference from Ezekiel:


"36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.od's law as Paul points out in his letter to the Hebrews with his quote from Ezekiel"

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 83 by bluethread]


Why should that be a problem?

Evidently, like you bible societies have chosen to refuse to mention God's name unless absolutely necessary. Many deem it necessary zero times, thus obscuring the identity of the True God for millions of people.

Someone mentioned this idea to me recently and after a bit of thought it occurred to me that identification really isn't the issue here. The reason being that identification isn't enough. Even establishing the identity of God isn't enough as is seen by the fact that fallen angels, demons, and even damned people have no problem identifying God and establishing God's identity.

What they are incapable of doing is knowing who God is, or rather as Paul points out being known by God. When one has an acute awareness that God is moving in and through them and that their life is no longer their own, they "know God" and know who God is. Again, this has nothing to do with identification or establishing God's identity. It is much more than that.

The other thing they mentioned was that Jesus came to reveal God's name. This on the face of it makes no sense whatsoever given that Jesus came to spread his message to Israel, and there is no way a Jew could even conceive of using God's name in vain without knowing first what God's name actually was, right?

From this it seems obviuos that Jesus couldn't be attempting to reveal God's name at all. What he was doing, and this is quite clear from the authors of the gospels; was to show the "authority" of God. We don't see or hear this much anymore, but most can remember those old black and white movies where the law enforcement officer tells the fleeing bandit to "Stop in the name of the law". He is speaking figuratively as the law has no actual name. He's pointing out that he has been given the authority to detain, arrest and bring criminals to justice by the legal system.

[bluethread]

The other thing they mentioned was that Jesus came to reveal God's name. This on the face of it makes no sense whatsoever given that Jesus came to spread his message to Israel, and there is no way a Jew could even conceive of using God's name in vain without knowing first what God's name actually was, right?

From this it seems obviuos that Jesus couldn't be attempting to reveal God's name at all. What he was doing, and this is quite clear from the authors of the gospels; was to show the "authority" of God. We don't see or hear this much anymore, but most can remember those old black and white movies where the law enforcement officer tells the fleeing bandit to "Stop in the name of the law". He is speaking figuratively as the law has no actual name. He's pointing out that he has been given the authority to detain, arrest and bring criminals to justice by the legal system.

That is indeed the point of a name in the Scriptures. It is not just an identifier like Unit #15793. It refers to either a significant relative or mentor, a significant event, or a significant characteristic. Since there is no one more significant, the name YHWH would be in relation to an event or characteristic. One of the things in Moshe's list of excuses for not going to Egypt is this question, (Ex.3:13) “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The (Elohim) of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?� The response was, (Ex.3:14) "And (Elohim) said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." I thought about writing the exact Hebrew words, but that might have confused things. This is not as straight forward as JW likes to portray it. Suffice it to say, I contend that it is saying that the most significant characteristic is that He makes all events significant. The next verse seems to be what JW is hanging his hat on. (Ex.3:15) "And (Elohim) said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, (YHWH Elohim) of your fathers, the (Elohim) of Abraham, the (Elohim) of Isaac, and the (Elohim) of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." What is interesting is that even after it is stated that Moshe' is to tell Israel that His name is YHWH, the next verse begins, "Elohim said". Why retain the generic term, if the specific term is to be the sole identifier. Be that as it may, the significant question I have is, if "this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" means that one is to use that term as the exclusive name and it is not to be removed from common use, why is the term not used in the writings of the Apostles, but the generic terms theos(deity) and kurios(lord) are used?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 85 by bluethread]

You can do what you like, call God Molech for all I care. I was simply questioning you as to how you justify your evident care for the pronunciation of bible names with your personal avoidance of God's name in favor of a generic "name replacement".

I will ignore the rest of your post as they seem to be addressing points I never made.


JW