Mark 12:13-17. Tax to Caesar.

From The Christian and the Payment of Taxes Used for War
by Willard Swartley

Mark 12:13-17. Tax to Caesar.

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians to entrap him in his talk. And they came and said to him. "Teacher, we know that you do not regard the human position, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." And they brought one. And he said to them. "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him. "Caesar's." Jesus said to them. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at him.

Before focusing on the meaning of Jesus' oft quoted "Render unto Caesar..." statement. I make four observations about the historical context of this scripture:

1. The goal of this encounter was to entrap Jesus. The crafty opponents are specified: "some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians." The Pharisees resisted the tax in principle but compromised in practice in order to make life possible under Roman occupation. The Herodians, a party we know little about except that they favored King Herod and the Herodian rule of Palestine, cultivated good favor with Rome and hence supported payment of this tax. Both parties must have suspected Jesus' position to be otherwise, else the question would not be a trap from their point of view.

2. The tax denoted in the text was a specific tax (not "taxes" as in RSV6 ). It was a poll tax, a tax instituted in A.D. 6. A census taken at that time (cf. Lk. 2:2) to determine the resources of the Jews provoked the wrath of the country. Judas of Galilee led a revolt (Acts 5:37) which was suppressed only with some difficulty. Many scholars date the origin of the Zealot party and movement to this incident. Blood had already flowed because of this tax and Jesus' anticipated answer to the question was calculated to be grounds for his arrest (see Mark 12:12).

3. The Sicarii or Zealots categorically refused payment of this tax. They regarded this tax as "an introduction to slavery and an affront to the sovereignty of God." The land of Palestine belonged to God. God gave it to Israel. No other nation had a right to it. A head tax levied by Rome was utterly abhorrent. Such was the Zealot view. In this incident particularly, one wonders whether the Pharisees and Herodians suspected Jesus of Zealotism and were seeking therefore to publicly expose him as a tax resister, a position that would inevitably lead him to the Zealot death penalty, crucifixion on a cross.

4. Rome required that the poll tax be paid with the denarius, a silver coin worth about twenty cents. During Augustus' reign (27 B.C.-14 A.D.), several hundred different denarii were issued. But during Tiberius' reign (14-37 A.D.), only three types of denarii were struck, with only one circulating widely, from Lyon to India. The Zealots would not have been caught alive with this coin in their possession.

On its obverse side the coin showed "a bust of Tiberius...adorned with the laurel wreath, the sign of his divinity."11 The legend read: TI(BERIUS) CAESAR DIVI AUG(USTI) F(ILIUS) AUGUSTUS, meaning "Emperor Tiberius august Son of the august God." On the other side was the title PONTIF(EX) MAXIM(US), meaning high priest' with Tiberius' mother, Julia Augusta, sitting on the throne of the gods. The coin was "the most official and universal sign of the apotheosis of power and worship of the homo imperiosus (the Emperor) in the time of Christ."

Within the context of these considerations, Jesus' first word of response "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin," touched the moral anguish of the Pharisees and Herodians. But the agony of the moment intensified when Jesus asked, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" I expect the Herodians, sooner than the crushed Pharisees, replied: "Caesar's.' In that one word lay the despair of the nation.

Then comes Jesus' stunning response: "Render unto Caesar...and render unto God." What does belong to Caesar and what does belong to God? The difficulty of arriving at an assuredly correct interpretation is illustrated by the following typical textbook commentary:

(1) Some see it as a clever evasion. The answer 'was primarily intended to be non-committal.' Jesus was really anti-Roman, but he refused to get caught on either side of the question before him....
(2) Jesus clearly asserted that the tax should be paid. Coins with Caesar's image on them belonged to the emperor. He had a perfect right to demand them.
(3) Others see the answer as advice which caught the testers. They had Caesar's idolatrous coin in hand. Of course they were obligated to return it to him. It was his property.
(4) Still others view the answer as an endorsement of the Roman head tax comparable to the advice Jesus gave Peter to pay the Temple tax (Mt. 17:24-27). Some think Jesus simply reaffirmed the Jewish position of loyalty to God and the government except when the latter demanded apostasy....
(5) Others argue that Jesus approved the double obligation to God and government, but he left to the individual the determination of the proper claims of each.

While one might advance arguments supporting each of these various interpretations, three considerations illumine interpretation of the text.

The historical and literary contexts favor the interpretation that Jesus' answer condemned the position of the testers. The preceding parable, spoken against the wicked tenants of the vineyard (Mk. 12:1-12), condemned the position of the religious leaders, those who questioned Jesus' authority (11:27-28). The test question about the resurrection posed by the Sadducees (12:18-27), which follows the tax question, received an answer which also condemned the position of the questioners. The same point applies to the scribe's question regarding the greatest commandment (12:28-34), though in a milder manner. Hence if this interpretation of the passage is correct, Jesus' reply would have sounded as follows: (with irritation) "(Then) render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and (with strong affirmation) to God the things that are God's."

Jesus thus forbade the payment of the tax for those who are faithful, implying that once one has compromised so much as to possess the idolatrous coin, then the tax matter has already been settled in principle.

2. Mark 2,3:1-3:6 records five additional encounters between Jesus and the religious authorities. Like the three in Mark 12, all five have the same questioning, accusing intent from the adversary (vv. 2:7, 2:16, 2:18,2:24, and 3:2) and each ends with a succinct, incisive reply from Jesus (2:10, 17, 19-22,27-28, and 3:4).Significantly, this series of episodes ends with the Pharisees seeking counsel from the Herodians in order to determine "how to destroy him." These two groups do not appear together again in the Gospel until 12:13; then comes the tax question--the plot planned to destroy him.

Jesus' answer, "Render unto Caesar...," is also very similar in type to the answers given in 2:1-3:6. In these cases we observe that (1) Jesus' position opposed that of the Pharisees and (2) his answer transcended the mentality of his questioners. By applying these principles to Jesus' answer to the tax question, we must conclude that Jesus.' answer opposed the Pharisee's position. But this does not necessarily classify Jesus with the Zealot's position of tax refusal, although it appears that the Pharisees did in fact so accuse Jesus (see exposition of Luke 23:2 below).

3. A further consideration enters the case. In Mark 3:4 Jesus responded with the typical rabbinical formula: "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" The Pharisees could not answer. Then in 12:14, having now collaborated with the Herodians, the Pharisees phrased their question also with the rabbinic formula: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"

The phrase, "Is it lawful... ," merits more attention. In Mark 2 Jesus answered not on the level of legality, but pointed beyond the letter of the law to the basic morality and religious authority upon which the law rested. Clearly, the Pharisees regarded Jesus as a law-breaker. Hence when Jesus in 3:4 responded, no doubt with tongue in cheek, "Is it lawful...?", it would appear to indicate that
(1) the Pharisees were still committed to their law above everything else,
(2) they planned to use the power of their law against Jesus on a very sensitive issue (i.e., they came "to entrap him"), and
(3) they knew that the tax question was so politically volatile that if Jesus hedged in any way in his response, they would have a case for the cross.

In light of these considerations, in our effort to derive contemporary moral guidance from this text, we must be careful that we do not simply adopt the position of the Pharisees; i.e., that law is the final word on moral issues. Significantly, Jesus' reply pointed beyond the rights of Caesar to the rights of God. God's claim and Caesar's claims must never be put on the same level. The text may not be interpreted in such a way as to equalize God's and Caesar's rights.

"We are An Evil Nation" - South Africa's Violence

Sue Littlejohn may be 70, but clearly age has not diminished her formidable fighting spirit.

She survived two previous attacks, but the one last week was the most horrendous.

For an hour-and-a-half two men played a game of cat and mouse with her, pouncing on her, strangling her, releasing her, and then striking again. They could no doubt have killed her, but instead chose to drag out the ordeal.

She escaped eventually by making a hole in her bedroom ceiling and wriggling along the rafters, descending down into the kitchen after the robbers had left.

Just another typical story of many incidents happening to the people of South Africa. In a country where 50 murders take place every day, the country has descended into the abyss. It is a country where good men fear for their lives! People would not believe some of the stories that are reported in the press over the last two months:

Josina Fourie, 81, grabbed a club and laid into two knife-wielding attackers who stabbed her and her husband in an early-morning attack. The couple fending off two attackers in their own home. Even their two dogs joined in. "Even my oldest dog, with a heart problem and just one tooth, joined in the fray." said Josina.

"We are an incredibly evil nation," said well-known forensic criminologist, Dr Irma Labuschagne.

"I believe people in our country have never been angrier with each other."

70-year-old Hettie Janse van Rensburg's fingers were cut off with garden shears. Her husband, Theuns, 72, was left for dead after he had been beaten over the head with a bush knife.

An elderly couple from Westdene in Johannesburg were held up by armed men for two hours, while they were assaulted and robbed. Gerrie Gerber, 82, was stabbed in the leg with a pair of scissors. He and his wife Rose, 76, were also repeatedly struck in the face and thrown against the furniture in their house. The robbers, armed with a knife and a screwdriver, ripped open cupboards in search of valuables.

Martina Stocker lay next to her husband's bloody corpse for more than 30 hours. She and her husband Jürgen fell prey to a gang of robbers at their Bryanston home, but were only discovered after their company raised the alarm. Jürgen, 66, was shot in the upper body and collapsed in the passage. He was tied up and left in a pool of his own blood.

A young woman who returned to South Africa after two years overseas, was tied to her dying father, who was shot by robbers during a robbery on the day of her return. The robbers shot her father. Helene and her father had to watch for more than an hour how the robbers searched the house and ate from the fridge before they eventually left with two laptop computers, a digital camera, DVD-player, iPod and two cellphones. Her father later died in hospital.

"I looked forward to returning to South Africa, but I cannot live in a place where such pigs are terrorising the community. Nobody is safe. It's not enough to rob. They want to kill," said Helene.

"I am angry. Is nobody going to do something about the senseless gruesome acts?" she wanted to know.

In "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense," van Wyk makes a biblical, Christian case for individuals arming themselves with guns, and does so more persuasively than perhaps any other author because he found himself in a church attacked by terrorists.

"Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air," he recalls of the July 25, 1993, St. James Church Massacre. "An automatic assault rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews -- and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory -- to pieces. We were being attacked!"

But van Wyk was not defenseless that day. Had he been unarmed like the other congregants, the slaughter would have been much worse.

"Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 special snub-nosed revolver, which I always carried with me," he writes in "Shooting Back," a book being published for the first time in America by WND Books. "I would have felt undressed without it. Many people could not understand why I would carry a firearm into a church service, but I argued that this was a particularly dangerous time in South Africa."

During that Sunday evening service, the terrorists, wielding AK-47s and grenades, killed 11 and wounded 58. But the fact that one man – van Wyk – fired back, wounding one of the attackers and driving the others away.

The biblical source for the obligation to defend oneself against an unprovoked attack is Exodus 22:1. Other English bible versions, the King James Version for example, number this verse as 22:2. There the bible states, "If a thief is found breaking in, and is killed, no liability (guilt) is incurred."

The bible does not instruct how the intruder is to be killed, only that the homeowner may kill him. The logic is that the thief, knowing that the home is occupied and nobody will stand around like a dolt as his possessions are being carted away right before his eyes, is prepared to murder the homeowner if necessary to burglarize the home.

The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 72A states, "Since the burglar is going to kill you, rise up (overcome your meekness and reluctance to be violent) and kill him first."

Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, often referred to as the RAMBAM-1135-1204 CE), in Hilchos G'neiva (Laws Pertaining to Theft), Chapter 9, explains further.

Sub-chapter 7: "A burglar, whether by day or night, has neither blood nor soul with regard to anyone killing him. It does not fall solely to the homeowner to kill him. Anyone may do so. The burglar may be killed on an ordinary weekday or on the Sabbath (during which time even the killing of an insect is prohibited). Any means available may be used to kill the burglar, since by his exercise of free choice his life has lost all value."

Sub-chapter 8: "It is irrelevant if the burglar actually breaks through a door and actually enters the home or is found in the homeowner's garden, courtyard or fenced area (where property is stored). It is equally irrelevant if the break-in occurs during the day or night. Why, then, does the Torah use the language "break in"? In most cases burglaries are break-ins under cover of darkness."

Sub-chapter 9: "What is the reason that the Torah permits the burglar to be slain, since his intent is only the theft of property and not murder per se (nowhere else in the Torah do we find the crime of property theft to be punishable by death)? There is a valid assumption that the homeowner will attempt to prevent the theft, leaving the burglar no option but to kill him. This places the burglar in the category of 'a pursuer with the intent to murder' and must therefore be killed, whether the burglar is an adult, youth, male, or female."

Thus the Torah affirms the sanctity of one's home, personal property, and life against the aggression of an intruder.

The Torah also obligates us to act, not stand idly by, if another person's life is endangered.

Leviticus 19:16 states "Do not circulate gossip or stand by idly when your brother's life is endangered."

The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 73A says it explicitly: "Where is it taught that it is obligatory to save someone who is being pursued by another with the intent to murder? The Torah teaches "Do not stand by idly when your brother's life is endangered."

This injunction applies to saving a woman (or man) from being raped, as the Torah equates murder and rape. Deuteronomy 22:26 states (regarding a betrothed woman who is violated in a field, outside of town, where no one can hear her cries for help and come to her aid) "The woman is blameless (and cannot possibly be suspected of an adulterous relationship), because just as a man rises up against another man to murder him so is the case of a helpless woman." Obviously, the same law applies to a single woman. The thread in that Torah passage is speaking of betrothed women. Nothing can be taken out of context.

Maimonides, in Laws Pertaining to Murderers and the Preservation of Life, Chapter 1, sub-chapter 10, explains Deuteronomy 22:26 further:

"But if someone is nearby to save the woman from being violated, that person must stop the rapist even if it involves killing him if no lesser force will suffice."

In no instance does the Torah condone 'vigilante law'. Once a murder has been committed, and there are witnesses to the act, they may not take it upon themselves to kill the murderer. There must be a trial, as is required by Common Law jurisprudence. However, if someone is pursuing another with violent intent and is ordered to desist by witnesses yet the pursuer ignores the warning, anyone must stop him by any means possible, including lethal force. If lesser force is sufficient, though it involves grievous and permanent injury to the pursuer, taking his life is not justified. (Maimonides, Laws Pertaining to Murderers and the Preservation of Life, Chapter 1, sub-chapter 7.) Common Law generally applies this principle when determining whether lethal force was justified in acts of self defense or the prevention of violence to a third party, either for law enforcement officers or private persons.

To buy a copy of the book, go to Amazon.

Various sources used to compile the information in this article.

From Catholic to Orthodox Jew

Professor Ephraim Meir, age 55, who wears the knitted skullcap worn by modern Orthodox Jewish men, grew up in a Catholic family that lived near Antwerp. His sister, the girl among the three children, is a member of the Belgian parliament. From an early age, his mother steered him in the direction of a career in the Roman Catholic Church. At 11, he began attending a Franciscan school. "I enjoyed the wealth that only a classical education in Europe can offer," he recalls. He spoke Flemish and French and quickly learned English and German, as well as classical languages.

Meir delights in shattering the myth of Christianity as dark and ascetic: "The Franciscans were wonderful people. They bestowed an education full of joy and love for children. The spirit of the 1960s penetrated the school with a feeling that the world had changed. This was the era of Pope John XXIII, who was a human, open figure."

At 17, Meir began studies at the Catholic University of Leuven. He majored in theology and is only the second person in Leuven's long history to graduate from its faculty of theology without becoming a priest. Why? Meir smiles. “At 20, I met my wife, Shoshi [a Belgian Christian girl, who later converted with him] at a charity ball. Love triumphed."

They were married in 1971 and spent their honeymoon in Israel. In the 1970s, Meir's first ties with Judaism were formed. "Christianity is a powerful cultural phenomenon” he observes “but I had a problem with Christian spirituality rejecting the connection with the flesh. I felt my body was human and was intended, by its very nature, to be together with another human being. I did not want a spirituality unconnected with life."

These were his first steps toward conversion to Judaism. "My religious soul was ecstatic" laughs Meir. On the other hand, the need to belong sometimes brought him to the more prosaic side of life: "We began to imitate things that Jews do. We did not think about what our next move should be." Thus, for example they would travel to the Jewish community in Antwerp to buy Jewish food for the Sabbath. "Nobody said anything. We certainly did not look Jewish, but the looks we received were interesting," he observes. It is hard to understand what meaning a philosopher could find in eating kugel nonetheless, the "Jewish elements," as he terms them, had an immense emotional impact on him.

Yet the road to Judaism turned out to be a long one. He accepted the invitation of the Bishop of the Netherlands to become the scientific secretary of the bishop's diocese. For three years, the Meirs lived like Marranos or crypto-Jews: At home, they observed Shabbat and kashrut, while, outside the home, they acted in every respect like Christians.

In his next position, as the Roman Catholic Church's representative in the Netherlands for Jewish-Christian relations, he was actively involved in the struggle to free Prisoners of Zion in the Soviet Union. A high point of his activities was the recruitment of a million signatures on a petition calling for the release of Natan Sharanksy (today, a minister without portfolio in the Israeli cabinet) and other Jews from Soviet prison cells.

Meir was very moved when he participated in a rally before the Soviet Embassy in the Netherlands, where he lit candles with Sharansky's wife, Avital. Singing "Let my people go" was an extremely emotional experience for Meir. A short while later, he decided to actively join the Jewish people. "What could I do? I had no choice. I simply love Jews," he laughs. "I loved their family togetherness, their warmth. At a certain stage, I asked myself: `What am I going to do now?' There is a certain momentum to life. When you are hooked up to an immense source of energy, you must become part of it."

"It was not an easy decision. And it was not easy to disclose the decision to my parents, or my children. I was not certain what the future would hold." Meir remembers how his parents accepted his choice with understanding. "I could feel a fire inside me. I felt that my Jewish soul was now being born, when I said that I simply had no other option. When my `Otherness' was born, I was close to the secret of Judaism." His wife understood and walked beside him along the path he had chosen, out of love: "Had it not been for her, I would not even have thought of such an idea."

They moved to Israel in 1983. "I told the rabbis:You have no choice." Meir recalls with exuberance. At age 33, he was circumcised together with his son Jonathan.

Meir subsequently began to teach at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and later became head of the philosophy department at Bar Ilan University where he teaches Levinas, a philosopher who is highly esteemed today. Levinas was the principal of a Jewish school in Paris and an observant Jew. Meir interviewed him prior to the publication of Meir's translation of Levinas' "Ethique et Infini," and calls him "my teacher and mentor." "Levinas' philosophy is linked to an analysis of our relationship with the Other," notes Meir. "Besides, he offers a highly developed school of Jewish thought. On the one hand, it links up Judaism and general humanism, while, on the other hand, it declares that Judaism contributes to the general world and that is individual liberty's link with responsibility and the limitation of liberty. Everyone talks about love but Jewish culture also places an emphasis on law. That is a unique perspective: Love without an acceptance of the Law is rather anarchistic."

Meir’s wife Shoshana is a special education teacher. His children seem to be following in their father's footsteps in intellectual terms and in terms of religious feeling, although they are taking different directions. Miriam, his eldest, translates philosophical works. She translated her father's book from Flemish into Hebrew. Jonathan is majoring in Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and his book on the Enlightenment and Hasidism in the 19th century is scheduled to appear soon.

How does Ephraim Meir see his conversion from a broad perspective? "Judaism is connected to the core of my personality," he explains. "It is like being a father or being married. I chose Judaism," Meir points out, "but I also feel that I was chosen. And that makes me happy. There is a challenge in this choice of a Jewish existence." He has always been a religiously devout person. When he rejected the Christian option ("A God who is all grace and love"), he became an observant Jew ("A God who demands limits and personal responsibility").

This story was taken from Rabbi Maller website encouraging Jews to remain faithful to their Jewish roots.

That Poor Woman is My Wife

RABBI AKIVA: FROM SHEPHERD TO SCHOLAR

Akiva ben Yoseph was one of the greatest Rabbis who ever lived. He was born about 17 years before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. His father Yoseph was poor and uneducated, as his father had been before him and his grandfather before that. As a child Akiva received no education. Instead of attending school, the boy helped to support his family by taking care of their sheep.

As a young man, Akiva worked as a shepherd for Kalba Savua, one of the richest men in Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel. Kalba Savua had a beautiful daughter name Rachel. One day Rachel went out into the field to inspect her father's sheep. Akiva, the poor shepherd, fell in love with Rachel instantly. And you can imagine how happy he was when Rachel returned to the field the next day, and then again the day after that!

Rachel returned, you see, because she had fallen in love as well.

At last, after many days, Akiva said, "Rachel, I know that you are the daughter of a rich man and I am only a poor shepherd, but I can no longer remain silent and hide my love! Nothing will make me happy unless you consent to be my wife."
Rachel replied that she would marry him only if he agreed to study Torah and get a Jewish education. This made Akiva very sad. How could he go to school now? He was too old, and how would it be possible for him to study Torah when he did not even know how to read and write?

One day as Akiva sadly sat beside a brook while tending his sheep, he noticed a large stone with a deep hole in it. What had formed the hole in the rock, he wondered. He looked closely and saw that the hole in the rock was in a spot where the water from the brook ran over it. He realized that the constant pressure of the water was what had worn away part of the rock. Amazing, he thought to himself, that something as soft as water could make a hole in something as hard as stone. And all it took was time  a great deal of time.

And then Akiva realized that even though he was no longer a child, and had no formal education, that if he devoted himself to the study of Torah he would be able to learn. All he needed was the time to study.

When Kalba Savua found out that his beautiful, rich daughter had agreed to marry a poor, uneducated shepherd, he was furious. He refused to give the couple any financial support, refused to provide his daughter Rachel with a dowry, and told her he never wished to see her again.

In spite of this, Rachel and Akiva were married, so great was their love for one another. But they were very poor. Akiva, no longer a shepherd for his father -inlaw's sheep, barely earned a living as a woodchopper. He certainly had no time to study, in spite of his promise to his wife. They soon became parents, and when their first born was old enough to attend school, Akiva went with him. It didn't take long for the teachers to discover that he had great talent for study. They encouraged Akiva to devote himself to learning.

"No sacrifice is too great," said his wife Rachel. "I will support our family while you study at the academy of one of the great Rabbis."

And so it happened. Akiva attended several schools of learning, and after many years became a student of Joshua ben Hananya, a great scholar.

One day Rachel heard that Akiva didn't even have enough money to buy candies. Because of this he studied in the dark, thus spoiling his eyesight. Quickly Rachel cut off her beautiful long hair, sold it in the marketplace and sent the money to Akiva.

Akiva became a great scholar, and his fame spread throughout the country. The lowly shepherd became one of Israel's most beloved Rabbis.

The day came when Rabbi Akiva felt it was time to return to his wife Rachel. But he did not go alone. Twelve thousand of his faithful students came along with him. When it became known that the great Rabbi Akiva was coming, all the people in the village went out to meet and welcome him.

Among the people was Rachel, his good, hardworking wife. Some students went ahead of the Rabbi to clear the way for him. They saw a poor woman in old clothes standing in the way.

"Move out of the way, poor woman", they shouted, "make way for the great Rabbi."
At this very moment Rabbi Akiva appeared and said: "This is my wife, Rachel. She is the one who made me study the Torah. Without her help I would not have become a Rabbi and you would not be my students."

With these words Rabbi Akiva embraced Rachel and together they walked into the village where they were joyfully welcomed. Meanwhile Kalba Savua had become a very unhappy man. He was still very rich but he deeply regretted his oath never to set eyes on Rachel. When Kalba Savua heard that a great Rabbi had come to the village he decided to go ask him how to undo his oath. Of course, he did not know that the great Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd who had married his daughter.

Rabbi Akiva did not show that he recognized Kalba Savua. He listened to Kalba Savua's story carefully and then asked: "If you find that your daughter is still married to the poor shepherd will you forgive her and take her back into your house?

"Oh yes, yes," answered Kalba Savua, "I shall be only too happy to have both of them live with me."

Akiva couldn't stand it any longer. "Dear father", said Rabbi Akiva, "I am Akiva, your former shepherd, and your oath is null and void."

Happily Kalba Savua embraced Rachel and Akiva. He shared his wealth with them and the three of them lived together very happily.

Those were the days when Bar Kochva, the great Jewish leader, called for revolt against the Romans who ruled the land of Israel. Akiva and his many pupils joined Bar Kochva and fought as part of the rebellion. This is the reason we remember Rabbi Akiva not only as a wise Rabbi but also as a courageous fighter.

Book of Matthew - Hebrew or Greek?

Are you reading the book of Matthew with your Greek mind?

Scholars seem to think the original book of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6
"Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."

Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.

Jerome also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13).

There is a Hebrew version of the Book of Matthew authored by Shem Tov (www.shemtov.org) known as Shem-Tob- ben Isaac ben Shaprut born in Tudela in Castile in the middle of the fourteenth century. He later resided in Tarazona in Aragon where he practiced medicine. Part of his volume of works is a Hebrew version of the book of Matthew.

It is compiled in the book Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by George Howard.

It is available from Century One bookstore.

Orthodox Sabbatarianism

Sabbatarianism

The movement is made up of various strands of belief which can be classified into orthodox (new movement), conservative, liberal and reform.

Orthodox Sabbatarianism

New movement within Sabbatarianism which teaches the true religion of Jesus Christ is Judaism. Christianity is the invention of gentile converts and is NOT the religion of Christ.

The Torah is not abolished by Jesus Christ therefore the movement seeks to live by all 613 laws as identified within Judaism. Orthodox Sabbatarians believe the Torah is a complete package of laws given by God. None of these laws were ever abolished by Jesus Christ. Orthodox tries to be consistent in the approach to the Law by observing what is applicable today without a Temple or levitical priesthood.

Circumcision, purification and sacrificial laws were not abolished by the death of Jesus (as NOT one jot or tittle will pass from the law) however sacrificial and purification laws were not required once the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.

History records the early followers of Jesus Christ known as the Nazarenes followed the practice of circumcision after the sacrifice of Christ (Nazarene Jewish Christianity by Ray Pritz).

The orthodox Sabbatarian movement believes in the practice of circumcision as outlined in the Torah.

Essentially the movement practices: 1) Sabbath 2) Festivals 3) Dietary Requirements 4) Circumcision. These are the basic requirements for any group to be considered as orthodox.

The laws of the Torah are observed as the laws apply to each person's own circumstances. The emphasis is on each individual to determine the application of the Torah in their own life instead of having an authority enforcing their own interpretation on its members. The Talmud records many different interpretations by the Rabbi's on the application of the Torah. At times the Rabbi's contradicted each other yet all of these contradicting statements were recorded. Orthodox Sabbatarians allows for a wide range of opinions and practice within the movement.

Groups: Firstfruits of Zion, Torah Resource, 2House

Conservative Sabbatarianism

The majority of Sabbath groups within the Armstrongite movement falls into conservative Sabbatarianism. They teach:

1) Sabbath 2) Festivals 3) Dietary Requirements 4) Tithing

Conservatives teach that the law of God is to be re-interpreted after the death of Christ. They believe that the law is to be divided into three aspects: moral, ceremonial and the statutes or judgments. The law is not to be interpreted as a definite package of laws that cannot be annuled. Jesus abolished the sacrificial and ceremonial laws upon His death, nailing them to the cross. Conservatives follow the moral laws and selective statute and judgments as interpreted by the church.

The distinct element among conservatives is the adherence to the tithing laws.

Groups: Philadelphia Church of God, Living Church of God, United Church of God, Church of God International, Ron Dart, Restored Church of God

Liberal Sabbatarianism

The minimum standard to be a liberal Sabbatarian is to adhere to the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments. The overwhelming majority of Seventh Day Adventists fall into this category.

The second group of liberal Sabbatarians are those groups within Armstrongism that do not teach the tithing doctrine.

The movement does not seek to follow a rigid set of rules as written down in the Torah but rather re-interprets the law applying it to our modern culture. The foundation of liberal Sabbatarianism is the Ten commandments and the moral law. Statutes and judgments which are observed by the orthodox and conservatives are not important to the liberals.

Groups: Seventh Day Adventists, Church of God Christianos , Church of God in Williamstown

Reform Sabbatarianism

Modern day messianic Jewish movements and the Worldwide Church of God can be classified as Reform Sabbatarianism. There is absolutely no requirement to observe the Torah in any form (with the exception of a few moral principles) however the Torah is observed in a non legalistic manner out of a deep love for God, or to share in the hebraic customs of the Jews showing support for Israel.

Most if not all of the Worldwide Church of God churches in England continue to hold services on Saturday even though according to their own theology there is no biblical requirement to do so. UK WCG members are reform Sabbatarians!

Reformers observe the token gestures of the Torah on a much higher moral ground because they are willingly submitting themselves to the Torah to please God. Or we could say they are the hypocrites of the Sabbatarian movement!

Groups: WCG UK

Christians That Don't Celebrate Xmas

Religion Today
By TOM BREEN

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — As Christmas draws near, Pastor John Foster won't be decorating a tree, shopping for last-minute gifts or working on a holiday sermon for his flock. After all, it's been 50 years since Christmas was anything more than a day of the week to him.

He's one of very few American Christians who follow what used to be the norm in many Protestant denominations — rejecting the celebration of Christmas on religious grounds.

"People don't think of it this way, but it's really a secular holiday," said Foster, a Princeton-based pastor in the United Church of God. He last celebrated Christmas when he was 8.

His church's objection to Christmas is rare among U.S. Christians. Gallup polls from 1994 to 2005 consistently show that more than 90 percent of adults say they celebrate Christmas, including 84 percent of non-Christians.

That's a huge change from an earlier era, when many Protestants ignored or actively opposed the holiday. But as it gradually became popular as a family celebration, churches followed their members in making peace with Christmas.

The change didn't happen overnight. Through much of the 19th century, schools and businesses remained open, Congress met in session and some churches closed their doors, lest errant worshippers try to furtively commemorate the day.

"The whole culture didn't stop for Christmas," said Bruce Forbes, a religious studies professor at Morningside College in Sioux City, Iowa. "Government went on as usual, business went on as usual, school went on as usual."

In researching his book, "Christmas: A Candid History," Forbes discovered that major American denominations — Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Methodists and Congregationalists — either ignored the holiday or actively discouraged it until the late 19th century.

That rejection was rooted in the lack of biblical sanction for Dec. 25 as the date of Jesus' birth, as well as suspicion toward traditions that developed after the earliest days of Christianity. In colonial New England, this disapproval extended to actually making the holiday illegal, with celebration punishable by a fine.

"Some somehow observe the day," wrote Boston Puritan Samuel Sewall on Christmas Day 1685, "but are vexed, I believe, that the body of people profane it, and blessed be God no authority yet compels them to keep it."

Some 322 years later, Sewall might be surprised to see his congregation — today known as Old South Church — proudly displaying a decorated Christmas tree outside the church.

"We think it's cheerful and seasonal," said Nancy Taylor, senior minister of Old South, one of America's most venerable congregations, counting among its past worshippers not only Sewall but Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams.

Now part of the United Church of Christ, Old South not only has a Christmas tree, but encourages its 650 or so members to exchange Christmas presents — although the focus is on charitable donations and service, rather than shopping.

"We are the descendants of the Puritans and Pilgrims, but we have loosened up a lot since then," Taylor said. "We have changed and adapted and I think that's part of why we haven't died out."

Like Sewall's successors, the mainline Protestant churches have learned to accommodate Christmas. But the change came from the pews rather than the pulpit.

Christmas benefited from a 19th century "domestication of religion," said University of Texas history professor Penne Restad, in which faith and family were intertwined in a complementary set of values and beliefs.

Christmas became acceptable as a family-centered holiday, Restad said, once it lost its overtly religious significance.

At the same time, aspects of the holiday like decorated trees and gift-giving became status symbols for an aspirant middle class. When Christmas began its march toward dominance among holidays, it was because of a change in the culture, not theology.

"In America, the saying is that the minister follows the people, the people don't follow the minister," Restad said. "This was more of a sociological change than a religious one. The home and the marketplace had more sway than the church."

That's partly why Christians like the United Church of God reject the holiday: They say divine instruction, rather than culture and society, should determine whether the holiday is appropriate.

"It's common knowledge that Christmas and its customs have nothing to do with the Bible," said Clyde Kilough, president of the United Church of God, which has branches all over the world. "The theological question is quite simple: Is it acceptable to God for humans to choose to worship him by adopting paganism's most popular celebrations and calling them Christian?"

There is still lingering unease with the holiday in denominations that once rejected it. This can be glimpsed in worries about commercialization and in individual Christians like Phillip Ross.

Ross is an elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Vienna, near Parkersburg. Well-versed in the history of Christianity, Christmas and Presbyterianism, Ross knows his church historically objected to Christmas.

On the other hand, Ross is also a father of two, and while he made up his mind to reject Christmas as a teenager, his children's early years included gifts, decorations and a tree.

"I have a love-hate relationship with Christmas," he said. "It seems obvious to me that there's nothing scriptural about it, but that's a hard sell with children."

Article Link

Why Waco?

The 1993 government assault on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, resulted in the deaths of four federal agents and eighty Branch Davidians, including seventeen children. Whether these tragic deaths could have been avoided is still debatable, but what seems clear is that the events in Texas have broad implications for religious freedom in America.

James Tabor and Eugene Gallagher's bold examination of the Waco story offers the first balanced account of the siege. They try to understand what really happened in Waco: What brought the Branch Davidians to Mount Carmel? Why did the government attack? How did the media affect events? The authors address the accusations of illegal weapons possession, strange sexual practices, and child abuse that were made against David Koresh and his followers. Without attempting to excuse such actions, they point out that the public has not heard the complete story and that many media reports were distorted.

The authors have carefully studied the Davidian movement, analyzing the theology and biblical interpretation that were so central to the group's functioning. They also consider how two decades of intense activity against so-called cults have influenced public perceptions of unorthodox religions.

In exploring our fear of unconventional religious groups and how such fear curtails our ability to tolerate religious differences, Why Waco? is an unsettling wake-up call. Using the events at Mount Carmel as a cautionary tale, the authors challenge all Americans, including government officials and media representatives, to closely examine our national commitment to religious freedom.

To order the book go to UCPress.

The Jesus Dynasty

In The Jesus Dynasty biblical scholar James Tabor brings us closer than ever to the historical Jesus. Jesus, as we know, was the son of Mary, a young woman who became pregnant before her marriage to a man named Joseph. The gospels tell us that Jesus had four brothers and two sisters, all of whom probably had a different father from him. He joined a messianic movement begun by his relative John the Baptizer, whom he regarded as his teacher and as a great prophet. John and Jesus together filled the roles of the Two Messiahs who were expected at the time, John as a priestly descendant of Aaron and Jesus as a royal descendant of David. Together they preached the coming of the Kingdom of God. Theirs was an apocalyptic movement that expected God to establish his kingdom on earth, as described by the prophets. The two messiahs lived in a time of turmoil as the historical land of Israel was dominated by the powerful Roman empire. Fierce Jewish rebellions against Rome occurred during Jesus's lifetime.


John and Jesus preached adherence to the Torah, or the Jewish Law. But their mission was changed dramatically when John was arrested and then killed. After a period of uncertainty, Jesus began preaching anew in Galilee and challenged the Roman authorities and their Jewish collaborators in Jerusalem. He appointed a Council of Twelve to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel, among whom he included his four brothers. After he was crucified by the Romans, his brother James – the “Beloved Disciple” – took over leadership of the Jesus Dynasty.


James, like John and Jesus before him, saw himself as a faithful Jew. None of them believed that their movement was a new religion. It was Paul who transformed Jesus and his message through his ministry to the gentiles, breaking with James and the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, preaching a message based on his own revelations that would become Christianity. Jesus became a figure whose humanity was obscured; John became merely a forerunner of Jesus; and James and the others were all but forgotten.


James Tabor has studied the earliest surviving documents of Christianity for more than thirty years and has participated in important archeological excavations in Israel. Drawing on this background, Tabor reconstructs for us the movement that sought the spiritual, social, and political redemption of the Jews, a movement led by one family. The Jesus Dynasty offers an alternative version of Christian origins, one that takes us closer than ever to Jesus and his family and followers. The story is surprising and controversial, but exciting as only a long-lost history can be when it is at last recovered.

This is a book that will change our understanding of one of the most crucial moments in history.


James D. Tabor is chair of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He holds a Ph.D. in biblical studies from the University of Chicago and is an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian origins. The author of several previous books, he is frequently consulted by the media on these topics and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs.

To find out more or to order the book visit The Jesus Dynasty

Jesus in the Talmud

Amazon Review (Note this is not my review of the book):

Scattered throughout the Talmud, the founding document of rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity, can be found quite a few references to Jesus--and they're not flattering. In this lucid, richly detailed, and accessible book, Peter Schäfer examines how the rabbis of the Talmud read, understood, and used the New Testament Jesus narrative to assert, ultimately, Judaism's superiority over Christianity.

The Talmudic stories make fun of Jesus' birth from a virgin, fervently contest his claim to be the Messiah and Son of God, and maintain that he was rightfully executed as a blasphemer and idolater. They subvert the Christian idea of Jesus' resurrection and insist he got the punishment he deserved in hell--and that a similar fate awaits his followers.

Schäfer contends that these stories betray a remarkable familiarity with the Gospels--especially Matthew and John--and represent a deliberate and sophisticated anti-Christian polemic that parodies the New Testament narratives. He carefully distinguishes between Babylonian and Palestinian sources, arguing that the rabbis' proud and self-confident countermessage to that of the evangelists was possible only in the unique historical setting of Persian Babylonia, in a Jewish community that lived in relative freedom. The same could not be said of Roman and Byzantine Palestine, where the Christians aggressively consolidated their political power and the Jews therefore suffered.

A departure from past scholarship, which has played down the stories as unreliable distortions of the historical Jesus, Jesus in the Talmud posits a much more deliberate agenda behind these narratives.

You can buy the book at Amazon.co.uk

Talmud Jmmanual

In 1963 a Greek Catholic priest by the name of Isa Rashid discovered the actual burial cave of Jmmanuel. On several occasions, Rashid took Billy Meier to the burial cave which was filled with a great deal of dirt and sand. Over the course of several excavations, Meier discovered a bundle of ancient Aramaic scrolls buried under a flat rock. Rashid and Meier took the package back to Rashid's home for analysis. The package contained 4 scrolls which were wrapped in animal skin and encased in a preservative resin. The scrolls were obviously extremly old and very fragile but the Aramaic writing was clearly legible.

Rashid was able to read Aramaic and they soon discovered what, today, is called the Talmud Jmmanuel. Rashid agreed to translate the scrolls into Meier's native language - German. It was Rashid’s wish that his name not be publicized. He feared, and rightfully so, that he would be persecuted by the Church and the Israelis and perhaps even be assassinated, a possibility that later became true.

The author of the scrolls was a contemporary and disciple of Jmmanuel who was known by the name of Judas Ischarioth (Iscariot). For about 2000 years he has been wrongly denounced as the traitor of Jmmanuel, although he had nothing to do with the betrayal. This ugly deed was actually carried out by Juda Iharioth (Ihariot), the son of a Pharisee.

To buy a copy of the book go to the website