Can we find the Christian God in the Tanakh?

[francisdesales]

The first Christians must have thought so, because when Marcion invented a canon that excluded the entire Old Testament, the Church opposed him and kept the Tanakh as part of their sacred writings.

Agree. There is a lot of evidence that early Christians saw the work of Jesus as "completing" or at least "advancing" the story line that is there in the Old Testament.

I think the Messiah must be read within a Jewish context to fully understand what God is doing through the Christ. I am learning more by reading a Jewish New Testament commentary (written by Messianic Jews, of course) that points out some interesting lines of thought on interpretation.

Regards

 

[Pard]

Francis,

Which commentary is that? I'd love to get my hands on it. Heck, I probably have it in one of my programs.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

Which commentary is that? I'd love to get my hands on it. Heck, I probably have it in one of my programs.

Pard,

The Jewish New Testament Commentary, by David Stern. 850 pages of commentary. Provides a lot of excellent material that other "orthodox Christian" do not provide. For example, it explains the Jewish euphemism about "the eye is the lamp for the body" in Matt 6:22-23. Having a "good eye" is being generous, to ancient Jews. Lots of good stuff on the Mishna and the OT. I highly recommend it.

I don't think you'll find it as a program, I prefer books,anyway.

God Bless

 

[Theofilus]

First, we should come up with a thorough description of God from the Christian view point.
Second, we need to find scripture in the Tanakh that actively supports our description of God.
Third, we ought to come to a conclusion on whether or not our description of God needs to be reevaluated.

So, you want to start by deciding what the correct "description of God" is, then look in the Tanak to find support for that description, then, once you've found it, decide whether the description you've already decided is correct needs to be reevaluated. Is that right? I think I know what the result of that will be. You will find what you're looking for in the Tanak and you will find that the Christian "description of God" does not need reevaluation. Let me suggest a different approach to finding the correct description of God. To start with, you must realize a few things.

First, Jesus and the New Testament writers didn't have the New Testament, since it wasn't written yet. The only scriptures they had were the Tanak and the only God they knew was the God described in the Tanak. When they talk about God they are talking about the God of the Tanak and when they mention scripture they are talking about the Tanak.

Secondly, God doesn't change. This is stated clearly in many places in both the Tanak and the apostolic writings, for example in Mal. 3:6 and Heb. 13:8. This includes not changing his mind. The "God of the Old Testament" is exactly the same as the "God of the New Testament".

Thirdly, the Bible is infallible, denominational headquarters is not. The doctrines and practices of the church today are polluted with nearly 2000 years of man-made traditions and syncretism (blending with other religions).

Keeping these things in mind, read the Tanak, starting with the Torah since it is the foundation on which the rest of the Tanak is built. From there, go on to read the rest of the Tanak. I would suggest you read it in the order it is in the Heberw scriptures, since that's the order Jesus and the apostles read it. The order of the books in the Hebrew Tanak is:

The Torah (Books of Moses)
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

The Neviim (Prophets)
Joshua
Judges
I Samuel
II Samuel
I Kings
II Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

The Ketuvim (Writings)
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Solomon
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Ezra
Nehemiah
I Chronicles
II Chronicles

Once you have studied all of that, you should have a fairly good idea of the concept people had of God in the first century (and you'll learn a lot of other things along the way). If you find something that contradicts the teachings of your church (and I promise you that you will) remember the thrid point I made above.

 

[Pard]

Francis,

Which commentary is that? I'd love to get my hands on it. Heck, I probably have it in one of my programs.

Pard,

The Jewish New Testament Commentary, by David Stern. 850 pages of commentary. Provides a lot of excellent material that other "orthodox Christian" do not provide. For example, it explains the Jewish euphemism about "the eye is the lamp for the body" in Matt 6:22-23. Having a "good eye" is being generous, to ancient Jews. Lots of good stuff on the Mishna and the OT. I highly recommend it.

I don't think you'll find it as a program, I prefer books,anyway.

God Bless

I'll see if Christian Book Store has it, I am heading that way next week, maybe I'll pick it up when I drive by. By program I meant I got BibleWorks8 and QuickVerse, and one other program and they got all these extra books and commentaries I have never even looked at (I only use them for Strong #'s, since my Strong's is falling apart and weighs about a ton!).

Theo,

I've read the Tanakh in the proper order, though after reading it both ways I have concluded that the order doesn't matter much at all, since the way we actually use them rarely is based on their order.

And I know the point you were making. That was half the reason I asked the question. I am curious about what does need to be changed, though frankly I do not believe it is very much. The other reason I asked this is because many Jews have informed me that I do not worship the same God as they do, and many more have told me I do. Though, not sure where it is their place to tell me, considering they spend way too much time in the Talmud for their own good.

 

[PouringRain]

The other reason I asked this is because many Jews have informed me that I do not worship the same God as they do, and many more have told me I do. Though, not sure where it is their place to tell me, considering they spend way too much time in the Talmud for their own good.

The ones who have told you that you do not worship the same God as they do are probably saying that because you worship Jesus as God? Since Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Moshiach, nor as God, to them you are worshiping a different God than they are and some go as far as to call it idol worship and polytheism.

 

[Theofilus]

Theo,

I've read the Tanakh in the proper order, though after reading it both ways I have concluded that the order doesn't matter much at all, since the way we actually use them rarely is based on their order.

Sorry if there's been any misunderstanding. I didn't mean that the order was an absolute requirement. I see it as analogous to learning math. Once you've learned addition and subtraction, you can go straight to division, but it could be helpful (but not absolutely necessary) to understand multiplication first. But a good understanding of addition and subtraction are absolutely foundational to all the rest of mathematics and they must be taught first. Likewise, the Torah is foundational the rest of the Bible and should be the first thing you learn.Once you have a good understanding of the Torah, you can go straight to the Hebrew writings or even to the apostolic writings, but it could be helpful to understand the prophets first.

And I know the point you were making. That was half the reason I asked the question. I am curious about what does need to be changed, though frankly I do not believe it is very much.

I have been emphasizing the Hebrew scriptures more in my studies for about 5 years now and, although it has changed my views on many things, you are correct in saying that it will probably not change many things in your understanding of who God is, althought that obviously depends on your current beliefs. It is more likely that you will gain a better understanding of why you believe what you believe. However, other than who God is, other doctrines could change drastically.

The other reason I asked this is because many Jews have informed me that I do not worship the same God as they do, and many more have told me I do. Though, not sure where it is their place to tell me, considering they spend way too much time in the Talmud for their own good.

There are two main areas concerning God on which Christians and Jews disagree strongly. The first is the Trinity. They believe that the phrase "the LORD is one" (Deu. 6:4) rules out the idea that there are 3 persons who are all equally God and all eternally co-exestant. The other area has to do with the divinity of Christ. Although the Torah tells of God appearing in anthropomorphic form, such as the three strangers that visited Abram (Gen. 18), they do not believe that a man who was born like ordinary men and lived and died among ordinary men could be God.

Remember what I said earlier. The only God that Jesus and the apostles knew was the God of the tanak and that's the God they taught about and that's the God we believe in. Christians believe in the same God as the Jews - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - but it is our understanding of who He is that is different.

There are other areas where Christians and Jews strongly disagree, but they are not directly related to who God is. Those areas include the purpose and validity of Gods commandments (not just "the ten", but all of them), the identity of Messiah and the salvation of Gentiles (Jews believe it's bossible, but not by faith alone).

 

[Ahuli]

i believe that the word for god is plural.(elohim) in genesis. i was stating that to the anti-trin guys and to drew that believes in the trinity why i posted that we should keep this op as the trinity is found in the ot.

Many people read things and never know or understand what it is they read. That is why it is so important to read God's word prayerfully and in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Who was it ... in the fire with the three children in the Book of Daniel?

 

[jasoncran]

i believe that the word for god is plural.(elohim) in genesis. i was stating that to the anti-trin guys and to drew that believes in the trinity why i posted that we should keep this op as the trinity is found in the ot.

Many people read things and never know or understand what it is they read. That is why it is so important to read God's word prayerfully and in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Who was it ... in the fire with the three children in the Book of Daniel?

one who appeared to be the son of the gods.
the king nebuchadnessar said that, i believe it to be christophene, and one of many.


keep in mind when i was born agian and a babe i wasnt inclined to accept the idea of the trinity and the holy spirit lead me to accept that, but i just beleived when i heard that it was being taught and the holy spirit in me telling me that the pastor was right, yrs later have i learned the verses for it.

 

[theLords]

I want to read this when I have more time!

 

[cyberjosh]

This is some good stuff so far, I want to jump in too.

I only ask this question as a mean of learning. We do not look to the Tanakh often enough. I fully believe that the God I know and pray to everyday is described the same in both the Old and New Testaments.

This is why I am now focusing on the OT more than ever in my studies because I realized that despite my having read so much of the Bible that I have not yet read every part of it yet, and mostly the gaps are in certain parts of the OT. I am going through Leviticus now and next want to read through all the minor prophets carefully and in detail. I have become well doctrinally founded in the theology of the New Testament, and consequently in my faith, but from such study I realized that only a deep study of the OT could bring out all the riches in the New Testament. I have been interested in Hebrew and Jewish thought, life, and history for a very long time and it has shaped my theology to a more concrete and real understanding of God rather than an abstract and "docetic" God who is aloof and untouchable.

Sometimes in the OT I am even amazed at how "witty" and sharp God can be in His words, and the sting of His rebukes and even sarcasm coming from God when rebuking His people blows me away and makes me want to humble myself immediately. Its also amazing how God can speak such powerful things and yet still seem to engage in a sense of Hebrew poetry at the same time with skill and elegance. God of course (con)descends to human language and even conforms it to existing literary forms in order to best communicate and relate to us/them, and sometimes to even discipline His people, and yet excels even the best poets a la supreme. God is the master rhetoritician. The book of Isaiah is also perhaps one of the most poetic and rich books I've ever read. I also find that the richness and rawness of OT realities (so far from our modern day, often "comfortable living", tech-age that it is mind boggling) have a vital sense of life in them and so I have a certain fascination for all things Semitic. The Hebrew language is beautiful in both its rusticness and poetic nature. And it is with this great richness that the OT scriptures were steeped and written in.

How this all applies to Christ is that this whole legacy of Semitic Israelite history and scripture led up to him, and even prophecied of him, himself being a Jew and the King of the Jews. The OT has great riches in it, and after I have thoroughly studied the basic and literal depths of the OT I also want to go back and delve into its symbolical and foreshadowing aspects of Christ and the Church in the NT. It is particularly for this reason that I am now tackling Leviticus, because I have a book written by Andrew Jukes (who lived in the late 1800s) called The Law of the Offerings that is amazing in its exposition of how Christ is foreshadowed in all the laws of the offerings in Leviticus and shows the significance of nearly every small act, from adding of specific ingredients to the offerings, to the order in which they are performed, and also the significance of why some can offer a bull, others a goat or sheep, and yet others a dove or unleavened bread to satisfy the same offering requirement (which he ties to spiritual symbolism/foreshadowing of different levels of intimacy in understanding - or "apprehending" as he says - Christ as the sacrifice for us, some more complete understandings than others).

The book was so rich & deep that I could not continue past the first few chapters without feeling cheated from my own lack of truly deep study of the OT as the author had obviously done, and I wanted to do such a study first so that I can get the most out of his book (so I stopped reading the book until I do). Charles Spurgeon read Andrew Jukes' book and said about it in his Commentary on Commentaries that it was a, "A very condensed, instructive, refreshing book. It will open up new trains of thought to those unversed in the teaching of the types". And while I'm mentioning this book, which follows exactly in line with the topic of your OP in finding Christ and the NT God in the OT, here are a few other things said about Juke's refreshing book (see book here):

"A classic on the typological significance of the offerings mentioned in Leviticus, showing how each clearly points toward some particular aspect of redemptive work of Christ."
—David W. Brookman, Basic Books for the Minister's Library

"No one explains the significance of the Levitical offerings (in relation to Calvary) as well as Jukes does here. Suddenly, it bursts into life with several superb chapters which are practically essential to the study of Leviticus."
—Peter M. Master, Pastor, Metropolitan Tabernacle

"Beginning with a defense of biblical typology, Jukes analyzes the five offerings of the Levitical system and discusses the typical significance of each."
—Cyril J. Barber, The Minister's Library

(source)
-------------------------

At any rate, I have a very deep and strong longing to understand the true riches of God's word in the OT, and also sometimes seeing beyond the immediate and obvious meanings to the deeper, revealing, prophetic intentions meant for our instruction & edification - hidden like diamonds beneath the surface in His word. Many times I've been blown away by such discoveries with reactions like "I never have seen that aspect of it before" or "I never would have thought to look at it like that" and I love every bit of it and want more of it. The riches are there. We just must search them out like the Bereans if we want to find the treasure. And most importantly, once we find it, we must treasure it also in our heart and manifest the truth which has been revealed to us in how we live and conduct ourselves before men and God.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

I think one thing that strikes people when they go from reading the Tanakh to the Gospel is that God "seems" to get "nicer". This is a failed interpretation, however, as God is as "nice" in the Tanakh, we are just blinded by His punishment.

I'm very interested also in investigating these areas of God's character and finding God's mercy manifested not only in the NT but also in the OT, but also with similar careful reading seeing as well the obvious wrath and judgement of God caried into the NT with just as scary judgements for the unrighteous as in the OT - showing utter consistency. I like seeing God's eternality and unchanging nature, the nature that makes him El Olam, God of Ages, who does not change when humankind goes throughout various epochs and ages of their own - yet God stays constant during our earthly experience of change. Andrew Jukes also happens to bring this out in another book of his called The Names of God which I have read and reviewed, and shows how the name El Olam is,interestingly, invoked consistently at times of faith crises in OT saint's lives and that they call on God's revealed character as El Olam as an anchor to hold them firm despite trials of changing times (ages), based on the fact that He does not change even when their own circumstances have changed (sometimes for the worse in tribulations). It was in these historically contextualized revelations and specific events that God was manifested and understood as the God of Ages, El Olam, by his own people - only possible to see once something has changed (for us). This is also an interesting explanation of why we must first go through trials sometimes for God to reveal something to us that was already true all along (even if we did not see or realize it). El Olam was such a special revelation.

Thus if God is El Olam He must be the same in the NT as in the OT, for God does not change. If any one fails to see that truth then it is because they have fallen short in their vision and understanding of God's multitudinous manifestations and aspects (Hebrews 1:1), which if only looked at individually reveal only an incomplete picture of Him. Jukes also does a fantastic job of making this point in his book. God Himself also says this very clearly, "For I am YHWH, I change not" (Malachi 3:6).

The Tanakh is simply the Hebrew Bible right? It has the same Books as our Protestant Old Testament, but divided differently, and in Hebrew.

I think Pard and Theofilus explained what the Tanakh consists of and its three sections quite well. What perhaps was not mentioned is that Tanakh is not a word, but rather an acronym: TNK (or TaNaKh) from Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. Just an interesting detail.

Pard,
The Jewish New Testament Commentary, by David Stern. 850 pages of commentary. Provides a lot of excellent material that other "orthodox Christian" do not provide. For example, it explains the Jewish euphemism about "the eye is the lamp for the body" in Matt 6:22-23. Having a "good eye" is being generous, to ancient Jews. Lots of good stuff on the Mishna and the OT. I highly recommend it.
I don't think you'll find it as a program, I prefer books,anyway.
God Bless

I'll see if Christian Book Store has it, I am heading that way next week, maybe I'll pick it up when I drive by.

Yes, I can second that this is an excellent resource! Look especially for the actual NT translation by David Stern the "Jewish New Testament" for which his commentary is actually a companion. It substutes Jewish Hebrew words for common English translations for consistency's sake and also to provide an authentic Jewish feel to it. For example, you will not see the word "priests" anywhere in this English translation (except maybe in brackets or side notes), but rather "cohen" and rather than "righteousness" you will see "tzadik". This really brings out a lot of the words' meanings. The NT translation and commentary make for a jam-packed combination of ultimate Bible study tools and unique insights. It's been a while since I've picked them up but I may need to get back to reading them again some time soon.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

In the beginning ('eth) God Created the heaven and the earth.

?? 'eth is not translated. It is in the Hebrew text. The word is assumed to have a denotation of "time"

The word is made of two Hebrew letters. Aleph and Tav. The first and the last of the Hebrew alphabet. The Alpha and Omega are the Greek counterparts as the first and last of their alphabet. The New Testament was either written in Greek originally, or the only surviving copies we have are Greek, so the translation makes sense. It is by translation that we have the name "Jesus" (Lesous) instead of Yeshua after all.

It certainly would be interesting to read into Genesis 1:1 a hidden foreshaddowing of Christ, but in all fairness I think i should point out that 'at (aleph-tav) or 'eth is a gramatical construction denoting a direct object in a sentance. I learned this from Jeff Benner who can explain that better than I can: Plowing through history from Aleph to Tav. He actually uses 'at/'et as his site logo and makes the interesting observations in the article: "The most common word in the Hebrew Bible is the word [SIZE=+1]את[/SIZE] (et)...The word [SIZE=+1]את[/SIZE] is also used very frequently (over 7,000 times) in the Hebrew language such as can be seen in the very first verse of the Bible."

He actually seconds your observation of the two letters being equivalent to Alpha and Omega, but he analyzes it from his pictoral Hebrew perspective (which his site is built around) of the word/particle's significance. It is essentially, as he says, "used as a grammatical tool to identify the definite object of the verb."

P.S. His site is what got me interested in Hebrew, and I do recommend it. I don't necessarily agree with everything on it, but Jeff is an awesome and unique teacher.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Theofilus]

Our Bibles quote Jesus as saying that He is the "alpha and the omega". Since both He and John spoke Hebrew or Aramaic as their native tongue, it is more likely that he spoke in one of those languages and used the first and last letters of those languages - aleph tav. Based on this, many people believe that the word "et" is, in some cases, a reference to Messiah. With that in mind, here's an interesting verse from Numbers.

Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel (Num. 1:2 KJV)​

The term translated as "Take ye the sum" literally means "Lift up (et) the head" ("head" is singular). If "et" refers to Messiah, then the verse could be understood to mean

Lift up Messiah, the head of the children of Israel.

From what I understand, there are many such references to Messiah in the Tanakh.

 

[Pard]

When Jesus said, "I am the Aleph and Tav" I am sure people knew what He meant, beyond what an English reader would get. I am sure the Jewish scribes and rabbis knew He was making a reference to the direct object.

Jesus and the Aleph-Bet

Neat article, it talks about a few things, but one of them is the eth in Genesis.

 

[cyberjosh]

Has anyone else here ever done a close study on the significance of the Levitical offerings and their foreshadowing of Christ? God's mercy (which we see manifested "more" in the NT) is implicit all throughout, if not explicit. I think that it does contribute to an understanding of finding "the Christian God in the Tanakh".

 

[cyberjosh]

its obvious that many people who hold the tanakh to be holy, read the same words as christians and come to different conclusions.

What are some examples? Are you refering to prophecy? Do you happen to know what any Jewish views are on this issue?

Thanks,

~Josh