Crossroads Fellowship

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Peter Was Not Training To Be A Rabbi

As many may well know I have been doing some teaching here at Crossroads on false teachings and heresy. In the process of that teaching I wrote a blog article entitled Trees. The article was about the Nooma video of the same name and the false teachings and heresy it contains. In the process of all of that I somehow managed to attract the attention of a group of people who go to Rob Bell's, the man who makes the videos, church. As they were defending him and his teaching one of the ladies made a comment about Peter being in training to be a rabbi before becoming a disciple of Jesus. Here is a verbatim quote of what she wrote:

"Check out Matthew 5:16. Tell me what you think after you read it. The bible talks about how the disciples studied under Jesus. Peter was studying to be a Rabbi and learned the entire OT most likely and than became a disciple of Jesus. Paul studied under some name I can not pronounce!lol I think the entire bible talks about the importance of reproducing yourselves in other people lives!"

After this a rather lengthy conversation begins on Peter being a rabbi, Jesus being trained to be a rabbi, and some even suggested that Jesus was studying to become a Pharisee before he started his earthly ministry, albeit a "good" Pharisee not a bad one. Here is what Chris Lyons wrote:

"Jesus' theology most resembled the theology of the "seventh" (good) type of pharisee (for more discussion on this, see Brad Young's "Jesus the Jewish Theologian" and "Meet the Rabbis"), and it should be noted that Hillel and others of this "Seventh type" said MUCH worse things about the pharisees, in general, than Jesus did, with 'hypocrites!' being the standard hue and cry against them.

So, with a few key differences (based on WHO Jesus was and his interpretation of 'kingdom'), his theology was very similar to the ideal "seventh" type of pharisee, but not the political designation of "pharisee"."

We never see a differentiation in scripture between "good" pharisees and bad ones. We see Jesus calling them out on their sin and merely using the word Pharisee. Paul was a Pharisee, and while being known as such was guilty of murdering and persecuting Christians. Certainly not a "good" Pharisee. Paul actually tells us himself that he was the chief of all sinners.

But back to what spawned the whole Rabbi discussion. Peter was training to be a rabbi according to some of the folks who were posting. I was even given a link to this site so that I could learn about him and Jesus being in training to be rabbis the way all Jewish boys were. However this whole discussion smacked of something not being right with it. I couldn't discount what they were saying outright as I had no proof, yet there was a check in my Spirit. So I just went on trusting the Lord to reveal the truth.

Before we go on I want to ask a quick question. Do you know how people who identify counterfeit money are trained? They study the real thing, and in studying the real thing they are able to instantly pick out the false. Well this morning as I was studying and spending time in daily devotions I ran across this verse in the process of doing the "Experiencing God" bible study written by Henry Blackaby.

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition.
Acts 4:13-14

Was Peter in training to be a Rabbi? Was Peter a Rabbi? Clearly the Word of God says no. As I study the real I will be able to see the false with clarity. This is why we believe at Crossroads and in the C&MA that God's Word - the Bible - is the only authoritative source of sound faith and practice. It is when we go to these extra-biblical sources, and believe them over the bible, that we run into problems. May God get all the glory, and may His Word be food for our souls!

Labels:

posted by Pastor Jerry at 7:08 AM

49 Comments:

  • Jerry,
    This is an excellent post to prove that one can miss the forest from the trees

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:53 AM  

  • Good one Erica

    I am so glad that we have God's Word that can guide us in truth. Where Chris L got that Peter was an educated, learned man I will never know. But the argument is from Bell's writings and his videos in which he claims that Peter was some sort of Rabbi in training when he walked on water is pure idle speculation without proof.

    I am glad God reveals Himself in the Bible. I am glad we can trust His word so we do not have to listen to Idle speculations. I am glad a guy like me can know and understand His Word because of the Holy Spirit.

    By Blogger pastorboy, at 3:41 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 3:47 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 3:52 PM  

  • From this source:

    Children began their study at age 4-5 in Beth Sefer (elementary school). Most scholars believe both boys and girls attended the class in the synagogue. The teaching focused primarily on the Torah, emphasizing both reading and writing Scripture. Large portions were memorized and it is likely that many students knew the entire Torah by memory by the time this level of education was finished.

    The decision to follow a rabbi as a talmid meant total commitment in the first century as it does today. Since a talmid was totally devoted to becoming like the rabbi he would have spent his entire time listening and observing the teacher to know how to understand the Scripture and how to put it into practice. Jesus describes his relationship to his disciples in exactly this way (Matt. 10:24-25; Luke 6:40) He chose them to be with him (Mark 3:13-19) so they could be like him (John 13:15).

    Most students sought out the rabbis they wished to follow. This happened to Jesus on occasion (Mark 5:19; Luke 9:57). There were a few exceptional rabbis who were famous for seeking out their own students. If a student wanted to study with a rabbi he would ask if he might 'follow' the rabbi. The rabbi would consider the students potential to become like him and whether he would make the commitment necessary. It is likely most students were turned away. Some of course were invited to 'follow me'. This indicated the rabbi believed the potential talmid had the ability and commitment to become like him. It would be a remarkable affirmation of the confidence the teacher had in the student. In that light, consider whether the disciples of Jesus were talmidim as understood by the people of his time. They were to be 'with' him (Mark 3:13-19); to follow him (Mark 1:16-20); to live by his teaching (John 8:31); were to imitate his actions (John 13:13-15); were to make everything else secondary to their learning from the rabbi (Luke 14:26).

    This may explain Peter's walking on water (Matt. 14:22-33). When Jesus (the rabbi) walked on water, Peter (the talmid) wanted to be like him. Certainly Peter had not walked on water before nor could he have imagined being able to do it. However, if the teacher, who chose me because he believed I could be like him, can do it so must I. And he did! It was a miracle but he was just like the rabbi! And then...he doubted. Doubted what? Traditionally we have seen he doubted Jesus' power. Maybe, but Jesus was still standing on the water. I believe Peter doubted himself, or maybe better his capacity to be empowered by Jesus. Jesus response 'why did you doubt' (14:31) then means 'why did you doubt I could empower you to be like me'?

    That is a crucial message for the talmid of today. We must believe that Jesus calls us to be disciples because he knows he can so instruct, empower, and fill us with his Spirit that we can be like him (at least in our actions). We must believe in ourselves! Otherwise we will doubt that he can use us and as a result we will not be like him.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 3:58 PM  

  • Jerry,
    Have you had any formal biblical training? I was just wondering.
    Grace and Peace to you!
    Pastor Boy,
    I am glad you liked my analogy! Grace and Peace be with you!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:00 PM  

  • FYI - for "Rabbinical" training to be complete (in terms of pre-70 AD training), it required typically 16-20 years of study under a Rabbi - Peter and John had 3 years with Jesus (and it is believed that John was with John the Baptist prior to that, so he may have had slightly more than 3 years)...

    So, if you want to say "Peter was not a Rabbi", you'd be correct. Jesus taught them everything they needed to know to follow him and spread the Word, though primarily to people already familiar with it (i.e. Jews and God-fearers). Paul, on the other hand, a Pharisee of Pharisees (a good thing, if you read his context) was qualified, having completed his study under Gamaliel.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 4:06 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Ken Silva, at 4:26 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 5:07 PM  

  • Thanks for your input Chris, but we're not going to agree here.

    By Blogger Ken Silva, at 5:13 PM  

  • Erica, from Chris L's source:

    "The term rabbi in the time of Jesus did not necessarily refer to a specific office or occupation. That would be true only after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed (70 AD). Rather, it was a word meaning ?great one? or ?my master? which was applied to many kinds of people in everyday speech. It clearly was used as a term of respect for one?s teacher as well even though the formal position of rabbi would come later. In one sense then, calling Jesus ?Rabbi? is an anachronism. In another sense the use of this term for him by the people his day is a measure of their great respect for him as a person and as a teacher and not just a reference to the activity of teaching he was engaged in."

    By Blogger pastorboy, at 5:28 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:29 PM  

  • PB -

    That goes to my point on the other thread that "Rabbi" before 70 AD is different than post-70 Mishnaic rabbis (which we have today). A number of scholars refer to the pre-70 AD rabbis as "sages" to avoid confusing the two...

    By Blogger Chris L, at 5:36 PM  

  • From the same source.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 5:38 PM  

  • Pastor Jerry - Jesus Himself said he was calling Peter to be a "fisher of men" (Matt.4:18-20). To inject the historical context of rabbinical training as the interpretive guideline is without Scriptural support. It is a guess.

    But what is the motive and what difference does it make? It is a subtle way to diminish the miraculous nature of Peter's calling in which he followed Christ immediately upon believing Andrew's Messianic proclamation. Nowhere in the gospels or in Peter's writings does he ever allude to his desire to become a rabbi under Jesus. That humanizes the narrative and dilutes the Holy Spirit's power to call these men without human understanding.

    When we read that Peter or Matthew or any of the disciples immediately left their occupations and families to follow Jesus the natural man seeks to expain it in earthly terms. The Spirit chose not to explain it in those terms because God was at work in a miraculous and sometimes mysterious way.

    Andrew did not summon his brother to come and study to be a rabbi, he said to Peter "We have found the Messiah!" (Jn.1:41) I do not believe Peter was interested in rabbinical studies or any other studies in the natural, but the Bible is silent on the matter and so should we be. Our interpretations must come from comparing Scripture with Scripture.

    Sometimes Messianic believers bring some solid backround to a greater unfolding of written truth, but sometimes they see all things through the eyes of Jewish history and custom and unknowingly change the clear meaning of Scripture. We must be careful about how we handle the Word.

    By Blogger Rick Frueh, at 5:48 PM  

  • Henry,
    AMEN

    To the others:

    Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition.
    Acts 4:13-14

    Again qouting extra-biblical sources doesn't matter. Acts clearly states Peter was not educated. That was the point of my post. Peter was NOT a rabbi he was not Torah trained at all according to the scriptures. Here is how the word uneducated breaks down:

    62 ἀγράμματος [agrammatos /ag·ram·mat·os/] adj. From 1 (as negative particle) and 1121; GK 63; AV translates as “unlearned” once. 1 illiterate, unlearned.

    It is derived from two words that are:

    1 α, ἄλφα [ /al·fah/] letter. Of Hebrew origin; TDNT 1:1; GK 1 and 270; Four occurrences; AV translates as “Alpha” four times. 1 first letter of Greek alphabet. 2 Christ is the Alpha to indicate that he is the beginning and the end.

    AND

    1121 γράμμα [gramma /gram·mah/] n n. From 1125; TDNT 1:761; TDNTA 128; GK 1207; 15 occurrences; AV translates as “letter” nine times, “bill” twice, “writing” once, “learning” once, “scripture” once, and “written + 1722” once. 1 a letter. 2 any writing, a document or record. 2a a note of hand, bill, bond, account, written acknowledgement of a debt. 2b a letter, an epistle. 2c the sacred writings (of the OT). 3 letters, i.e. learning. 3a of sacred learning.

    So if it is negative participle of α AND γράμμα means the sacred writings of the old testament, then that would actually say that Peter, who this post was about, who in the last string people tried to say was studying to be a rabbi before Jesus got him, was actually NOT studying to be a rabbi.

    According to the sources you qoute Peter would have been studying from boyhood, when we actually see from scripture that he was not.

    Jesus does not go looking for folks who have it all together he actually goes looking for the scrubs as you will see plainly from scripture here:

    1 Corinthians 1:26-31
    26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

    Which all would line up quite nicely with how God worked throughout the ages, Moses was weak and had trouble speaking, David was a lowly shepherd, the least of his father's sons. And I could go on. You can give me all the extra-biblical sources you want, but scripture is clear.

    Erica to answer your question I have had school training, and that school training is totally irrelevant here. School doesn't make you better or worse. Paul was well schooled and trained yet was the biggest enemy to the church until after his conversion. His education availed him not in the matters of a personal relationship with the Lord.

    By Blogger Pastor Jerry, at 6:05 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger pastorboy, at 6:10 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Ken Silva, at 6:21 PM  

  • Oh what did i start haha..

    To be fair to Chris,i brought up pharisee first,i was surmising if they were trained anything it would of been Pharisees, as "rabbi" didn't exists as we know the term..(i could be wrong,Jacob Prasch seems to imply they did,and he no fan of Rob )..

    I think Chris is correct about the schooling..It was a long road to become a Rabbi lasting till 30,as the years flew by students would be drop/kicked out..

    So was Jesus a Rabbi by any "description" ? I doubt it,he was a carpenter and left that at 30ish,when would he of "been" a Rabbi?
    But i don't think thats what Rob and Chris are saying,their saying he was a Rabbi by inner gifts i think..

    Theres a wonderful sermon by Gary Wilkerson on this subject..Gary as appeal to both groups here,he himself is just a sweet and humble man and so funnnny,on the flip side is dad (David) is respected by the more fundamental side, though i respect him greatly myself.

    Its called Memzar to Schmica: The Outcast Has Something Only From God

    on this site> http://www.worldchallenge.org/en/view/sermons?page=5&filter0=&filter1=2&filter2=%2A%2AALL%2A%2A&filter3=%2A%2AALL%2A%2A&filter4=%2A%2AALL%2A%2A

    drop is name down to filter speakers its on page 6

    He argues the opposite that the disciples were trained..He seems to see great hope that Jesus picked the outcast not the religious educated

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:26 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:45 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:53 PM  

  • Erica,
    I am suprised you are sticking to your guns with the whole Peter training to be a rabbi thing. Scripture is pretty clear he did not train that way at all. He was not a student of the torah at all, he was simple uneducated country folk. Not talking about women here, talking about Peter.

    Is your understanding of Acts 4:13 that he was trained, schooled, etc?

    By Blogger Pastor Jerry, at 7:13 PM  

  • Hi i asked over at Chris site but it may get swallowed up..

    Where does Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren

    come into all this stuff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:18 PM  

  • NIV is clearer (i knowwww i'm a heretic)

    "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:20 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:26 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 7:29 PM  

  • One other item of note - Jesus was recognized as teaching as one with authority (s'mikah). Only a small handful of sages (rabbis) were ever recognized as having authority: Choni and Hillel (prior to Jesus), Gamaliel (contemporary to Jesus), and Akiva (after Jesus) are a few of these.

    If you were a sage ("rabbi") without authority, you taught exactly as you had been taught. Only if you had authority could you come up with new ways of teaching.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 7:32 PM  

  • Chris i would say i was in 99% total agreement with what you say butttt

    Firstly that verse hes speaking to the disciples there clearly his followers,and hes saying don't use that title..

    Secondly where is this Rabbi thing going? Is it strictly Jesus is our Rabbi? Or can a Christian be a Rabbi to a new follower?

    Thirdly If a Christian can be, can he have s'mikah ? Or is that a gift strictly of Christ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:37 PM  

  • "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

    "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

    This entire passage deals with humility and calling yourself by titles. Calling yourself "rabbi" (respected teacher) or insisting on it would be presumptuous, particularly in this context...

    Also, to reiterate, the point of following a rabbi is to live just like them, not for personal glory.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 7:39 PM  

  • Can a Christian "have" s'mikah ? Or is that a gift strictly of Christ

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:43 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Rick Frueh, at 7:48 PM  

  • Secondly where is this Rabbi thing going? Is it strictly Jesus is our Rabbi? Or can a Christian be a Rabbi to a new follower?

    Jesus is our rabbi - if we are his disciples, we want to be just like him.

    If we are making disciples, Jesus is still the archetype, but we should be so much like him (in action, not divinity) that we model what he was like. Since we still are susceptible to sin, though, we also must model a reaction to that which would be back in line with the way taught by Jesus.

    As for s'mikah, Jesus told his disciples that all authority had been given to them, which is the format used for ordination... So, it seems that - at some level - authority to teach and make rulings (based on scripture, but in the cultural context) was passed on to them. We have evidence in scripture of both Paul and John acting in this capacity to some degree.

    Has this been passed to today's Church? Definitely not, if you are asking "can we alter scripture?" (which is not what s'mikah allows), but because we have the Holy Spirit and the Word as a guide and overseers/pastors/elders, at least these individuals have the ability to "bind and loose" praxis, based upon scriptural principal and the current culture. (For instance, an inner city church here in Indy has a "binding" from the elders that the members should avoid certain types of dress recognized to be "gang colors").

    The thing a lot of folks jump to is the issue of homosexual practice and that somehow a church could define "s'mikah" to allow it, but this would violate s'mikah because it would invalidate an absolute in scripture rather than interpreting it.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 7:53 PM  

  • That humanizes the narrative and dilutes the Holy Spirit's power to call these men without human understanding.
    But now you're creating your own systematic description of this event. Rather, the calling of each of the disciples is never declared to be "miraculous" (apart from Jesus' knowledge of Nathan), but rather fits right into the culture.

    Part of looking at the Bible from a Hebrew/Jewish context is not to change it, but to understand it as it would have been understood when it was written.

    One example I've heard is to think of your church's sanctuary. If you look at it from the middle of the back left row and then walk to the front right corner and look toward the back, you see many (if not most) of the same things, but from a different perspective. Nothing in the room is changed, but you have a different view which reveals different details.

    This is how reading the Bible from a Greek/Western perspective (which much of Western Civilization is immersed in) is different from an Eastern/Hebraic perspective. Same things - nothing changed - but a different viewpoint.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 8:00 PM  

  • Rick,
    Doesn't it seem hypocritical to be running around the internet telling people how they should comment when you don't allow comments on your own blog?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:01 PM  

  • Ok i like your answer!!

    Ive read some pro Rob sites,and i think that's where Rob is sufferings a lot of bad PR..

    Maybe its not implied and i'm reading into it, but some come over as
    1 Jesus had new authority
    2 Jesus had new teaching on scripture "You heard it said,now I tell you "
    3 Jesus gave us his authority
    4 we now have the autority to interpret it in a new way

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:10 PM  

  • Part of thos comment section is exactly why I do not provide a comment section. However I plainly present my e-mail and will entertain constructive discourse.

    spcrick@msn.com

    Hypocrisy? On some level maybe. But again you point to me and fail to understand the substance of my point. We can and should do better.

    By Blogger Rick Frueh, at 8:11 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Ken Silva, at 8:22 PM  

  • This seems to be the one issue about which all the different theological views can agree. Odium theologicum.

    The venum is circular.

    I am not sure what productive discourse is, but I am sure what it is not.

    By Blogger Rick Frueh, at 8:28 PM  

  • Jerry,
    Be done? You proved to me nothing. I think you are wrong.
    Hi, Henry nice to have you back around in the blog world!
    Grace and Peace to both of you!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:13 PM  

  • Well again this is going nowhere. If we look back at the original posts we see where I qoute Erica as specifically saying that Peter was studying to be a rabbi BEFORE he became a disciple of Jesus.

    I say no he wasn't. Scripture, not culture, but scripture says he wasn't, and yet we are still debating this. Is it that hard to admit when you make a mistake? I guess so.

    So anyhow the fact that the word uneducated used in Acts 4:13 means unlearned in the Torah means nothing to most of you guys. You can talk your way in a circle about the issue, but you can't just throw out Acts 4:13 cause you don't like it, and you can't explain it away with culture. The word means what it means. But hey to quote one of you my "use of Acts is laughable." Hmmmm it seems the only use of scripture in this discussion about whether he was training to be a rabbi BEFORE he became a disciple of Christ. No one has one scripture that they can produce that says he WAS doing this before Christ, but I got one that says he wasn't, but oh well we shall just tear that page out of the Bible.

    Jesus is not just my teacher. He is first and foremost my God, my Savior, my Lord, and my Creator. Does he teach me? Absolutely, but to reduce him to nothing more than a rabbi is to take away from his very essence of being God made manifest in the flesh. Now I assume you are going to say it doesn't, but that is to be expected.

    As far as being done, I was actaully playing a computer game, amusing myself while my wife was at the Christian County Jail doing Jail ministry and my kids were snoozing.

    I have no hopes of swaying any of your beliefs, and I am not trying, but you are all giving my church a very good class in heresy, false teaching, and the power that buying into false teaching has over us.

    If you like Rick or don't like Rick it doesn't matter. Rick is right about how you guys talk to each other and to me.

    I have been calm, peaceful, and have not insulted anyone (at least that I can recall) in this whole thing. Yet people on both sides of this discussion resort to insults, digs, and cut downs when they can't think of anything better to say.

    Like anonymous said yesterday, this is destroying eveyone's witness involved. From this point forward I will be deleting all comments that contain put downs and insults. If you don't like that then take it to another blog. If you can deal with that then let's play nice.

    By Blogger Pastor Jerry, at 10:52 PM  

  • I agree with Henry, this name calling is not productive.


    I have been guilty.

    It does not change the fact that I totally disagree with the eisogesis of Peter being trained individual, and that he sank because he did not believe in himself.

    And insulting a fine Christian man like Jerry, who has nothing but concern for the lost...it is just beyond the pale

    By Blogger pastorboy, at 11:06 PM  

  • Sorry, Jerry, but in the Greek, the word agrammatos (translated as "unschooled" in some cases, though more accurately "illiterate" - being able to read and write), which might also indicate that they had not been through Bet Midrash (which comes after Bet Sefer).

    This is consistent with the Galilee culture for the teaching system, which focused on the memorization and oral learning rather than on reading and writing (which was more common in Judea, where there were libraries and scriptoria (where scribes were trained)).

    I'm not trying to work around Acts 4:13. To be on the Sanhedrin, you had to be fully versed in all of Torah and its interpretation (as a Sadducee) or all of Tanakh (as a Pharisee). Anything less than this was "illiterate"...

    By Blogger Chris L, at 11:41 PM  

  • totally disagree with the eisogesis of Peter being trained individual, and that he sank because he did not believe in himself.

    Actually, this is an inaccurate summation - It is most likely that Peter sank because he did not have faith that, through Jesus' power, he could be like his rabbi. The text does NOT say "Why did you doubt me" - Jesus is still standing on the water and Peter reaches out to him (which doesn't seem to indicate unbelief in Jesus) - but it says "Why did you doubt?" (sans "me")...

    By Blogger Chris L, at 11:44 PM  

  • No one has one scripture that they can produce that says he WAS doing this before Christ, but I got one that says he wasn't, but oh well we shall just tear that page out of the Bible.
    There was a good deal of scripture in the source cited. We have Peter calling Jesus "rabbi" on multiple occasions in the gospels. We have Jesus referring to his followers as "disciples" (mathetes in the Greek, talmidim in Hebrew). Both of these words have specific meanings in the culture in which they were spoken - and it is more than "Teacher" and "student" - much, much more.

    This was well understood for the first 300+ years of the church, but the anti-semetism of the early Catholic church, followed by Reformers who were just as anti-semetic, choosing instead a Western eisegetical understanding of scripture in an attempt to remove Jewish character from it, has pulled the Bible from its original context still today.

    So, you can either ignore what is known about first century culture and accept the antisemetic lens through which it has been ripped, or you can choose the original context of the scriptures.

    Apparently, the traditional, western anti-semetic version is much more appealing to you.

    By Blogger Chris L, at 11:55 PM  

  • but you are all giving my church a very good class in heresy, false teaching, and the power that buying into false teaching has over us.

    Or, you are giving your church a good example of what the Jews of Antioch did when they followed Paul 80 miles on foot to Lystra...

    By Blogger Chris L, at 11:57 PM  

  • Jerry,

    You wrote:
    Jesus does not go looking for folks who have it all together he actually goes looking for the scrubs

    That was EXACTLY the point Bell made, and that RVL made in the site I sent to you. Rather than choose the best and the brightest, Jesus chose the scrubs who hadn't made it through all of the levels of training!

    Peter likely had only made it through Bet Sefer (though his comments about Elijah and Moses on Mount Hermon might indicate that he had a working knowledge of the teachings in the Oral Law from both the Psalms and the Prophets).

    The fact that these boys were working on their families' professions when Jesus came and chose them (along with the passage in Acts) is highly suggestive that they were not the "best and brightest" when Jesus chose them to be his talmidim, but that it was Jesus' faith that they could follow him - not by their ability, but through the Spirit - that made their selection so unique, compared to most other rabbis, whose disciples sought them out.

    The very act of being a disciple meant that you wanted to be just like your rabbi. It is not a student/teacher relationship - a student just wants to know what his teacher knows. A talmid, on the other hand, wants to be what his rabbi is - 24/7.

    Nobody in this conversation - not Erica or Joe or myself - is suggesting that Peter was a scholar or that he was a rabbi, and you've twisted the faith lesson about Peter walking on the water into something that it was not.

    As a talmid (and the oldest, if textual analysis and church history is correct), Peter would have wanted to try everything that his rabbi did, and it is perfectly logical that he would have gotten out of the boat. There is no logical explanation, though, for his doubt to be in Jesus' ability - because Jesus was still walking on the water and Peter reached out to him and cried out to be saved. That doesn't seem like doubt in Jesus in the plain meaning of the text!

    Jesus is not just my teacher. He is first and foremost my God, my Savior, my Lord, and my Creator. Does he teach me? Absolutely, but to reduce him to nothing more than a rabbi is to take away from his very essence of being God made manifest in the flesh.

    Nobody in this conversation has "reduced him to nothing more than a rabbi". Nobody - it just so happens that you made this particular role of his into the topic of the OP!

    Rather, I would argue, as does Brad Young in "Jesus the Jewish Theologian", that the fault of the modern church is that they have put so much emphasis on the faith in Jesus, that they have forsaken the faith of Jesus. Who he is has completely overshadowed what he taught.

    There is much we can learn from the Jewish roots of scripture (which are much older than Rob Bell - whom I hadn't heard of for more than a decade after I had already been familiar with the Hebrew roots of scripture), things that are right there in the text which, because we didn't understand the context, we've filled in our own context, which may or may not have been correct.

    A simple example is with Jesus' profession: According to scripture, he was a tekton, an artisan. Because we translated scripture into English in Europe, where artisans mostly build with wood, we translated tekton to mean "Carpenter". However, if you go to Israel - to Capernaum and Nazareth - there is very little wood at all. Rather, in Capernaum the primary business was making millstones from the basalt deposits there and shipping them all over the middle east. So, Jesus' profession was actually that of a stonemason, not a carpenter - which fits so much better with some of the examples he and his talmidim used in teaching.

    This is not an issue of "heresy" - it's an issue of wrestling with the scripture and looking for how those who first heard it would have understood it, so that we can best follow it in today's culture.

    Disagreement is fine, but being an uncharitable reader/listener - which you have proven to be thus far with Pastor Bell - and "heretic hunting" in the manner you've chosen is not of the Spirit of God...

    By Blogger Chris L, at 1:08 AM  

  • I think its important to remember that the creator and disciples were Jewish,there is much we can learn about how scripture can be seen in light of Jewish culture..

    But my major concern,is this idea of s'mikah..It is very seductive idea and is open to abuse on certain scripture that are unclear..I'm suspicious that Robs all love of the rabbi thing,is really so he can bring the idea of s'mikah to the fore..

    A positive example of this would be a change in attitude to slavery?

    A negative example


    Would be the interesting conversation i had with a gentleman,who claimed that through his studies he now knew that Jesus consented to a homosexual lifestyle,his complete basis for this was Matthew 19:10-12..
    He argued that it was "revealed" to him & others,like the rejection of slavery had been for previous generations..

    (i was once involved in a bi-lifestyle,so please don't read more into what i'm saying)


    I'm not saying Rob 100% uses the idea of s'mikah to maneuver round awkward beliefs,but i'm suspicious that some could..

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:48 AM  

  • Chris you had a interesting conversation with Amy on ur site...Her point " I think that some of the ideas about how a Rabbi operates and how a disciple views his relationship with a Rabbi are important to consider in studying the New Testament. However I would never want to take interpretations, understandings of NT culture and make them a primary way of interpreting a passage. Bottom line, I think this is what Rob Bell has done." i think is a valid point..
    .....................

    I think this idea of Christ being their Rabbi is valid to a point,mayb 3 verse's?..In John 1:38 there calling him Rabbi,but by v 41 the rabbi/student relationsip takes a major shift,they know from day one this isn't some Rabbi this is the Messiah ..

    (41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:12 AM  

  • Locking the thread and discontinuing the discussion for two reasons.

    1. Nobody has a scriptural basis for continuing. The counter argument to my scriptural argument is not an argument based in scripture.

    2. I have three people including myself meeting for prayer at 6:00am this morning at my church. We are sitting here praying and each of us feels led that the discussion is pointless and fruitless and is actually counter productive for faith building in anyone's life. We are praying for everyone involved in this discussion, that the Lord will change each of us, to include myself, in the areas that we need to be changed. If we are all born again believers then as we focus on Jesus we should be growing more like him, thus more like each other. Our prayer is that we will find unity in God's Spirit as each one of us seeks the infilling and indwelling presence of our Lord.

    By Blogger Pastor Jerry, at 6:19 AM  



<< Home