Who were the dogs?

When a Syrophoenician woman (whose mother was Greek, and thus making her a gentile) entreated the Lord to cure her daughter of the cruel demon, what did Jesus reply? Nothing at first. She cried out again and this time, he told his disciples, "I was only sent to the lost tribes of the house of Israel". Well, she definitely wasn't one of them! It was not until her incessant pleas that Jesus was compelled to turn to her and say, "It is not right to take the bread from the children and throw it to the little dogs". At this the woman said, "Yes master, but even the little dogs eat the bread crumbs that fall from the master's table". It was at this point that Jesus commends her of her shrewd perception. She understood Jesus' mission. She has foreseen the future. She knew of the mystery that was hidden from the ages until its revealing through Jesus Christ. And I would dare say, she was the very first gentile on this earth to have known that one day the gentiles would be heirs together with the Jews according to the promise. And her reward? Her daughter was healed of the demonic possession.
The phrase, "little dogs" means non-Jews, i.e. the gentiles. And "crumbs" are the blessings and promises God made to Abraham, "And in you all the tribes of the earth will be blessed". Thus Jesus told her "Let the children be fed first", meaning that it was to the Jews first that the oracles of God were given and the recipients of the first promise: namely, "I will bless your seed, I will multiply them on the face of this earth and to you seed shall be given the land of Canaan". Thus Israel got her fill. But the last remaining promise was not accomplished until the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10, when the Holy Spirit fell on the gentiles too and became heirs together of eternal life. And the part, "eating the bred that falls from the table" refers to the fact that it was through the Jews that salvation came (John 4) and through their seed that knowledge of immortality was granted. And God has grafted us, as wild olive branches to the natural olive tree (Romans 11). Thus we have this mystery embedded in this incident.
Thank you for reading,
Br. Leo

Parable of the nut

I want us now to direct our minds to a story I heard when I was small. A story that is very illustrative of how we are to live in God's Kingdom. That is why I've styled it a parable. It's actually a popular story in my country. So, before we continue our study on the topic of the headcovering, I wanted to share this amusing account with you:

In a small poor village, there once lived nine hard-working brothers. They've lived together in a small one-room house. It was actually more like a hut than a house. The brothers worked together in one room, ate together in one room and all slept together in one room. And it happened, that there was a severe famine in the land, and as a result all the citizens began to be in want. And these brothers were no exception.
The brothers anxiously sought for enough nourishment to sustain them all. But alas, none could be found. Suddenly, as they were on a verge to give up, they've discovered a small glass jar, and inside it was one single little nut. Who should be the one to eat the nut?
The nine brothers were overcome by love and compassion for one another and did not desire that one of them should be filled while another go hungry. Therefore, after some hours of consideration, the older one came up with a solution wherein not only they would not throw away the nut, but at the same time, everyone would have a fare share.
The nut was placed on a table, the eldest brother cracked open the shell, took out his knife and split the tiny nut into nine thin slices. He then gave each slice to them all and to himself went the last slice. Then they gave thanks to God who provided them so bountifully in this time of distress.
Thus, that is the story of how the nine brothers joyfully shared the one nut.

How can we apply this parable as Christians? My personal take on this little story is that even in our deepest want and greatest poverty, we must all be willing to share what (we may consider) little God has given us. Whatever small we get in a time of distress, out of our love, we must give to those who have none. How much more amongst those of the household of faith.
I know that it is difficult to imagine such a scenario in this day and age of commercial hyper-consumerist world, where we are at relative ease have almost all that we desire. Let us, nonetheless, still be of this mind in whatever circumstance we may find ourselves in.
And finally, be thankful for all things: both (what we may consider) small and great!
Thanks for reading.
Br. Leo Nikoladze

Headcovering: sexual differentiation Part III

It has rightly been pointed out that in God's eyes, the human soul is not an androgynous entity: which means that the soul is neither unisex, nor sexless nor bisexual as many suppose: The soul does in fact retain its unique masculinity (in men) and unique femininity (in women). As a matter of fact, there is indeed such a thing as a masculine spirituality as well as a feminine spirituality.
In contrast, the gnostics (a heretical sect of the 2nd century) held that the soul is actually androgynous and that gender is something that must be overcome:

Please consider these gnostic quotations that come directly from their own writings:

"When you make two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female...then you will enter the Kingdom of God" (Gospel of Thomas, logion 22, as also found in "2 Clement" 12 and "Gospel according to the Egyptians").

"I myself shall make her (i.e. Mary Magdalene) male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Gospel of Thomas, logion 114).

And finally, "When Eve was in Adam, there was no death. When she was separated from him, death came. If she enters into him again and he embraces her, death will cease to be" (Gospel of Philip) - This last quotation obviously teaches man's need to overcome sexual differentiation.

Such concepts and ideology were completely alien and antithetical to that of the apostles. For Paul, sexual differentiation is surely to be retained in the Kingdom of God. Sexual differences (i.e. differences between men and women) is not the result of the fall and a curse, but that of God's creation. As Jesus also states in the gospel: "He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female" Matt. 19:4 and "God made man male and female, in the image of God He made them" Gen. 1:27. Therefore, the differences in roles between men and women ought to be celebrated, not suppressed.
The so-called "unisex" concept can only be found in the above pseudo-Christian texts that the early Christians have rightfully rejected as spurious and heretical.

Let us now see how all this ties into the passage on the headcovering:
1 Corinthians 11:14: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has a long hair, it is a glory to her".

Here, Paul appeals both to our innate sense and the laws of nature: women naturally wear their hair long, whereas men wear it short. This is to reflect our differences as men and women. All throughout history, men have generally recoiled from wearing their hear long and in the same way it was also considered shameful and dishonorable for women to wear their hair short. Therefore, even in how we groom and the way we represent ourselves demonstrates just how much we honor or dishonor the order which God has set up.
Many of you can remember in the 1960's and 70's that there were many social trends in culture and fashion, which sought to alter that natural order by way of grooming: we can recall how women began to cut their hair short to represent that they are a "liberated woman" and likewise men began to wear their hair long (especially by the youths) as an act of rebellion and demonstration for their dislike for sexual differences that God created. I figure that it seemed very natural for them to demonstrate their rebellion towards God in doing something that is very counter-intuitive. I think they were instinctively conscientious of that reversal, because they had that innate and natural knowledge in their hearts that told them: men wear their hair short and women wear their hair long. This trend is very representative of the sinful and fallen nature of man.
But Paul clearly rejects the notion of there being a unisex beings in God's Kingdom. God created us male and female. The different roles between men and women are very clearly laid out in the pages of the New Testament. Thus we do get a concept of masculine and feminine spirituality. The Holy Spirit does not leads us into androgyny: but our differences become even more clearly defined. It is only the spirit of this world that tries to convince us that there are no sexual distinctions. But nothing can be farther from the true spirit of Christianity as a unisex spirituality.
In contrast, there were many ideologies that were becoming popular in the Roman Empire in those days, especially in Corinth: where gnostic and middle Platonist ideas of the soul as being a mere spark of the divine (or the "inner light") were becoming extremely influential. The gnostics, the middle Platonists in the first four centuries and all the way to the Quakers and 19th century transcendentalists maintained that there is "no sex in the soul". But this concept is nowhere found in the pages of Scripture.
Galatians 3:28 cannot be vouched for the position that the soul is sexless because the context of that passage shows how believers inherit the Abrahamic promises that were made to them by God. In this passage, we are given the assurance that all of us could become the children of God by adoption whether if we're slave, free, male, female, Scythian, Greek, Roman, Barbarian or Jewish. We are all one under God's grace. Nothing in this passage about a sexless soul and overcoming sexual distinctions as many venture to perversely interpret.
In closing, Paul uses sexual differences as one of the arguments and justifiable reasons for women to cover themselves. The headcovering is our visible appreciation for a) who we are as men and women in Christ, b) Respect for God's order of the universe, c) Relationship within the members of the Trinity, d) Christ's relationship to the Church e) Acknowledgment of the beauty of nature.
Thank you for reading,
Br. Leo Nikoladze

Headcovering - Headship as one of the bases Part II

We will continue our discussion of this topic by analyzing Paul's first justification of the headcovering, namely headship, relationship within the three divine persons, and God's created order .

1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God."

There are several important matters that we must glean from this passage: a) Our relationship to Jesus Christ, b) man's relationship to woman, and c) Christ's relationship to God (the Father). Paul begins his argument in favor of headcovering by God's created order, our subjection to Christ and Christ's subordination to His Father. It must be stressed that Paul does not in anyway use "culture" to justify the necessity for women to cover. Rather, in this text, it is crystal clear that God's order of creation is here advocated.
It must also be emphasized that the issue of modesty does not appear in Paul's argumentation: Paul does not use modesty as one of the reasons to justifying the veiling of the head either.
In short, for Paul, it is a matter of divine and anthropological order, the order that is to be reflected in how we are to conduct ourselves in this world as Christians.

A) Christ is the head of every man
There is no dispute here that we are called to obey Our savior. We are to do His will and obey His commandments. He is Our Lord and God, He is Our King and the Author of life. Therefore, man is called to submit to Christ in everything. I assume that all my readers are in agreement to this.
This is God's ecclesiastical order.

B) Man is the head of the woman
Throughout Scripture, from the book of Genesis all the way to the New Testament, woman was called to submit to man, respect his authority as the head of the family and obey him in everything (Gen. 2:21-25, 3:16, 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Eph. 5:22-33, Col. 3:18, 1 Tim. 2:8-15, Tit. 2:5, 1 Pet. 3:1-6).
This is God's created order, something that can not be changed or overturned. We all know that just very recently, women did just that, namely, they've rebelled against God's created order. In their sinful pride and maliciousness they no longer wished to submit to men nor fulfill their God given roles. Instead, they've cast off their natural roles as wives and mothers and pursued a life that goes against nature. Likewise, the men did the same with respect to their natural roles. As a result, we live in a culture and society that no longer calls men to provide and protect their families and women to care and nourish the family either. Thus we get a very androgynous society, wherein sex roles are seen as either a) obsolete, b) reversible, or c) something to antagonize. Therefore, whether you walk down the streets in your city, or observe in the movies, sitcoms, music, art, school curricula, college lectures, magazines, the workplace, newspapers, neighbors, or the internet, the natural and traditional roles of men and women are relentlessly impugned and maligned.
Is this the way God wants His creation to function? Should Christians go along with the rest of the world in sin and rebellion?

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 : "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man".

God created woman out of Adam's rib as a helper suitable for him. Because she was created out of him, and created for a specific purpose, she is to submit to him: not the other way around as the society teaches us. Man is the image of God inasmuch as woman is the image of man. Since She was created from man, the woman reflects God's image, because God formed her in the image of man. Man bears God's image and glory, and a woman carries an image of man. That is the hierarchy in the created order. That is why Paul insists on a woman to carry a visible "symbol of authority" on her head.
It is significant to point out that this event predates the fall and the curse. Paul hearkens us back to creation itself: that is, to Genesis 2 where woman was created, and not from Genesis 3 where a fall and a curse is pronounced.
So, this is more a matter of how God wants us to relate to each other. We must act, speak, behave, and function that is reflective and consistent of God's created order and not to conform to the societal fads of our day.
I will not deal with the issue of submission further, since there is indeed a great deal to be said in regards to this. For now, the above statements will suffice for the topic of the headcovering.
This is God's anthropological order.

c) God is the head of Christ:
Jesus, as the Divine Logos of God, proceeds from the Father, the Father begets the Son, the Son derives His being and substance from the Father, the Son submits to the Father and keeps His commandments. Yet the Son's nature is not distinct from that of His Father, but are of one essence and co-exist from eternity past.
This is God's divine order.

Once again, I would like to ask my readers, does Paul give a limited application of the headcovering? That is, was it on account of culture? Society? Local customs?
As we have seen, the answer is a definite no. What exactly is Paul's basis? His Basis and argumentation is based on a delicate cosmic order:
a) ecclesiastical order (Man to Christ)
b) anthropological order (Woman to man)
c) divine order (Christ to God)

Thus, we have God-head-Christ-head-Man-head-Woman = headcovering: the "symbol of authority" (verse 10).

There are also two other orders that this particular passage does not mention, but it is mentioned elsewhere (eg. the book of Genesis):
d) cosmic order (human beings are the heads of creation; they are to have dominion over all the animals: fish, beasts, birds, creeping things, etc. and to work and keep the land)
e) Angelic order (not as explicit in the Scriptures, but such an order does exist: in relation to men, to God, to creation and their role as ministers).

The point is, that there is a delicate prearranged hierarchical order in this universe that cannot be overturned or adulterated. Each separate role performs its function to reflect this cosmic harmony. That is why we cannot rebel against the separate roles that God gave us, since only chaos and lawlessness would ensue.

As for point a) Christ rules over His church in a variety of ways:
a) Atomic (Christ is the head of the individual: a baptized believer who obeys the commandments of Christ: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly with all wisdom" Col. 3:16)
b) congregational (Christ rules over a specific group of individuals: Matt. 18:20. Christ is the head over a collective entity: ("Where two or three are gathered in My name, I am there in the midst of them").
c) Catholic (Christ is the head of the universal body of believers worldwide: i.e. the Church. That encompasses every baptized believer on earth: past, present, and future: "Christ is the head of the Church and the Savior of the body" Eph. 5:23).

Thus we see that Christ permeates all aspects of our faith and worship. He is also the head of creation and of the Church: atomic, congregational and catholic. Paul understood this hierarchical order and thus he writes to the Colossians: "Christ is all and in all" 3:11.

This was a perfect way that Paul begins his discussion on the headcovering: it is a matter of headship, which transcends any societal norms of any period, era or geography. Since God and Christ cannot reverse order, since Christ can never rebel again His Father and since man cannot switch places with Christ as the head of the Church, neither should a woman rebel against the authority of the man. This order is immutable and eternal no matter how the world changes. Although, man has the ability to attempt at trying to overthrow God's order, but that is due to our sinful nature.
God bless you all,
Br. Leo Nikoladze

Headcovering, is it Apostolic or human?

Prologue

The key question with regards to headcovering is this: is it scripturally binding? According to my research the answer is a definite yes. If you're curious about this topic and have an open mind, please read on! I post this out of my heartfelt love for the brethren and not out of some selfish desire to stir up disputes. I say this because this is a very sensitive and controversial issue, one which involves a great deal of emotional fervor. And I am fully aware that wearing the headcovering (Which I personally believe to be Scriptural) is very religiously and politically incorrect in our day and age. Therefore, I am not deliberately trying to offend other people's sensibilities....

Headcovering, part I: Apostolic mandate of Church order.

One thing we must remember is that it is absolutely inconsequential whether it is unpopular to practice the custom of the headcovering in this day and age or not. It is also totally irrelevant how many churches have abandoned this practice, because what we have to be concerned with is truth. And truth is not determined by a popular vote, nor has it ever been a majority view.

We must diligently heed to the opening words of Paul in this Chapter “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (V. 1), which means that we go by what the Scriptures say and what our Lord commands us, and not what man or a culture tells us to believe.

In this passage, Paul uses the word “tradition” rather extensively from verse one through verse eleven. It is also evident that he uses the same language in other epistles as well, especially when he is giving instructions and commands on certain topics. Therefore, it is best to analyze what this tradition is, and where it is coming from: is it from heaven or from men? To put it more succinctly, is this tradition of apostolic or human origin?

Firstly, Paul begins the discussion of the headcovering within a context of the adherence to the traditions Paul has already handed over to the Church, and his exhortation to remember them: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” (V. 2)

I will now endeavor to commence this discussion with a key word that Paul uses not only in this verse, but also throughout his epistles and those of other Scriptures as well.

The Greek word for “tradition” is para,dosij an act of handing something down, (from one generation to another for example) and it is actually the exact same word for our English “to hand” or “to deliver”, it is important for us to remember this fact, because where our English draws this distinction in words (ie. To hand and tradition), such a distinction does not exist in Greek: “keep the traditions (para,dosij) just as I delivered (pare,dwka) them to you”. Both Paradosis (as an abstraction) and Paredoka (as a verb in the aorist) derive from the verb paradidomi: paradi,dwmi which means to “hand over”, “give over” and “to deliver”. Therefore the words traditions and delivered in this verse are just one word in the Greek text. Paredoka is a word also used in Scripture to refer to the law that was handed down by Moses to the children of Israel, therefore it is perfectly comparable that Paul, as an Apostle is handing down the things of the New Covenant.

The reason why I emphasize this fact is because any notions of the headcovering being a mere product of Greco-Roman culture, (as many modern commentators are wont to allege) is excluded. If we regard this "paradosis" to be only apostolic, then any charges of cultural adherence must be discarded. As I have pointed out elsewhere, nowhere in this text (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) does Paul command the Christians to adhere to the local customs of their day, but rather to God's created order (verses 7-10). I will deal with this issue into greater depth below and in a future post.

Now, before I continue, many folks have used Paul’s use of the word Paradosis as an argument that the Apostle urges the Corinthian brethren to conform to the current Greco-Roman culture of their day: and as a result Paul is telling them to keep those traditions. Some even allege that Paul is advocating keeping the Jewish traditions, others Roman, others Greek and so on. However, this is not a very sound principle of Biblical hermeneutics, because Paul did not say “conform to the society around you”, but, “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you”. All that this passage proves is that the traditions Paul speaks of were not the traditions of men, neither Jewish traditions, or Roman nor the very traditions which Christ has vehemently condemned in the gospels. Rather, they are the very traditions Paul himself received from the risen Lord and given them to the Church. In other words, the specific traditions, which is spoken of here are Apostolic. The burden of proof lies on the one who asserts that Paul is speaking of a pagan Greek or Roman or Jewish culture to justify woman's covering of her head. Such a thought is entirely alien to Paul's way of thinking. Paul does not use culture to justify headcovering, he uses a) the apostolic tradition he received from the Lord, b) the word of God, c) nature (Creation of man, creation of woman, and headship) and d) common human sense. And we’ll look at the last three later.

Thus, custom has no other source but only from the apostles; its origins are clearly Christian. Paul would never tell his brethren to conform to societal customs: His authority was from Christ and from Scriptures, (in this case the Book of Genesis),

First, let us look into the origins of Paul’s apostolic tradition and see where it had come from: Matthew 28:18-20: “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”. So from here we see that the disciples of Christ derive their teachings from none other than from Jesus Christ himself. I am also fully confident that the custom of headcovering was actually begun by Jesus himself, after all Paul opens the discussion with “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (V. 1)...and "for I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you" (v. 23).

Now let’s go on to Paul’s similar exhortations of “keeping the traditions” and how those traditions are not some optional good-thoughts-of-the-day, but are in actuality binding and function as direct commandments even as equally as the traditions concerning baptism, communion, and the resurrection.

As Paul was instituting Lord’s Supper, he also uses the same justification of instituting the Supper as he had in instituting the headcovering: for we read this in the exact same chapter, (just after leaving the discussion of the headcovering). Now he’s setting up another custom that the Church must follow as we read in verse 23: “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered (pare,dwka) to you”. Here Paul’s source of tradition comes directly from the Lord Jesus: consider the fact that as he was penning this epistle, the gospels were not yet written down in a form we have them today: 1 Corinthians predates Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So where else does he get the exact quoted words of Jesus when he was eating the Supper with his disciples? Paul himself states that he received from the Lord and he is delivering this paradosis to the churches! That’s exactly where our traditions of the Lord’s Supper, Baptism, and marriage come from; not from some pagan religious custom(s). Since we observe the Lord’s Supper every Sunday as Paul here directs, and the collections for the Church as Paul has directed in a very few and implicit words, why not his instructions on the headcovering too? Since it is far more explicit and forceful than the above two commandments.

Likewise, in chapter 15 of the same epistle, Paul, recounting the living traditions of Jesus' resurrection: “For I delivered (Paredoka) to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins...he was buried...rose again the third day...he was seen by Peter and the twelve...he was seen by five hundred brethren at once...he was seen by James...And last of all, he was seen by me”. We see here the exact same pattern and the exact same construction in language. There's a same pattern when instituting the Lord's supper, and also the same pattern with the account of Christ's ressurection and likewise with the institution of headcovering.

I would like to pose a challenge to anyone, where in the gospels do we have that after Christ was risen from the dead that he appeared to James? James, the brother of our Lord in John 7 was an unbeliever during Jesus' ministry. Or to a crowd of five hundred at once, many of whom, remained during the Apostle's lifetime? We do not find any of that information in the four gospels but only in this little account recorded in this epistle: in other words, this is an Apostolic tradition that was independent of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yet, do we nullify Paul's testimony to the historicity of the resurrection only because it's described as a tradition and not found in the four gospels? By no means!

In II Thessalonians 2:15, it reads as follows: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions (para,dosij) which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” Here Paul is being more emphatic and forceful; the Thessalonian brethren had to hold fast to the paradoseis that Paul had taught them: Whether personally or in our case by the epistle.

This verse here is rather interesting because it is brought up within the context of apostasy that Paul talks about in the beginning of the chapter: in verse 3 it reads “For that day will not come”, referencing to the coming of our Lord, “unless the falling away (Apostasia) comes first….And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” and then down to verse 15 Paul begins by the word “therefore”, thus giving us an ultimate antidote to apostasy, namely to keep the traditions

Now, getting back to Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, let's look at what Paul says in the same epistle, just three chapters later: “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (V. 37). And this was spoken within the context of the relationship between men and women, exactly as was the discussion three chapters back. These are not just optional tips Paul is giving us here, this is something very serious, in fact the Greek word evntolh, is the same word that is used of for instance, the commandments of Moses, the ten commandments which were absolutely binding, and finally Jesus’ commandments as he explicitly commanded his followers: “He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me” (John 14:21) and so on.

Furthermore, which of the traditions is Paul commanding the Churches of Corinth to adhere to if it is not Apostolic in the first place? Corinth was a cosmopolitan city: it was a) a Greek city wherein women never covered when they prayed to their deities, b) a Roman colony where men actually had to cover their heads when praying and even prophesying (The very thing Paul is opposed to), c) The city had many inhabitants from all over the world: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Asia, Italy, Spain all with conflicting views with regards to woman's veils. d) The city had a very large Jewish community, where both men and women had to cover their heads to pray. And e) The city contained all sorts of wide variety of religious customs brought by its inhabitants from all over the world: Isis from Egypt, Magna Mater from Asia and emperor cult worship from Rome. So I ask again, which of these cultures does Paul commands us to follow? We must remember that there really was no such thing as a Corinthian culture in that time, since Corinth was a multi-ethnic society with peoples from all over the world. The obvious answer would have to be that Paul does not in any way, shape of form tell the Corinthians to adhere to human tradition, but those of his own: "Keep the traditions that I have delivered to you" (v. 2)

So, if Paul directs the Christians to keep human traditions, which one of those did he direct them to imitate? After all, none of them have stressed the need for women to be covered. Paul's teaching here is very counter-cultural: it was revolutionary: it challenged the practices of the day in which the early disciples lived. It did not conform to it as many backwardly like to argue!

And finally, in reference to the word Paradidomi, (an act of handing down, a tradition) this was used very extensively from the above mentioned passages we’ve encountered thus far and its use in 1 Corinthians 11:2 when Paul begins his discussion of the headcovering. In Jude, we find this exact same wording! And what are we to do with it? Here’s the answer: “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered (paradoqei,sh|) to the saints” (V. 3). Notice that it says that we must earnestly contend for and not earnestly cast off as so many have done.

This is what we must do, keep them as Paul exhorted us and to earnestly contend for them as Jude does, and that includes everything that the Scripture tells us. We know that the word tradition which is used in this passage is none other than apostolic; which is derived from Jesus himself, as Paul also states in 1 Corinthians 11: “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered (pare,dwka) to you” (V. 23).

Forgive me forr being awfully repetitious. I must admit that this post was written rather hastily, but enough, I think, to prove my point.

To be Continued...

The Dead Sea Scrolls in Toronto

Greetings all,
I apologize for having taken so long to write a new post. It would seem that I have so much catching up to do!
Anyways, as you may be aware, the "Dead Sea Scrolls" are now exhibited in Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto (where I live). Their link is found here
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been deemed as "the greatest archeological find in the century" and I wholeheartedly agree! They are amongst the oldest manuscripts we (currently) have of the text of the Old Testament. They were discovered in the caves of the Dead Sea near what once was an Essene community of the first century. The scrolls were hidden away into large jars for preservation (since they were written on papyrus sheets, parchment and vellum) and were kept safe from the invading Roman armies during the Roman-Jewish war in A.D 66-70. This hidden treasure was accidentally (or shall I say providentially) discovered by a Bedouin shepherd boy in 1947, who stumbled into one of the caves (11 caves in all), while he was looking for his straying sheep (so the story goes). Eventually, this discovery was noted by the local authorities and scholars all over the world, and ever since then the place has been subject under extensive excavations.
The contents of this vast and priceless treasure trove were hundreds of Biblical Scrolls dating from about 250 B.C to 68 A.D. To put all these scrolls together, we pretty much have an entire Old Testament Bible except for the book of Esther. There are also many of non-Biblical and extra-canonical writings among the collection as well: e.g. "Book of Enoch", "Genesis Apocryphon", "War Scroll", "Book of the Watchers", "Thanksgiving hymns", "Damascus document", "Jubilees" etc. These all make an interesting read as they tell us much about Jewish sectarian life in and around the time of Jesus and earlier. The collection consists of around 800-900 documents. The scrolls were discovered in (what today is known as) wadi Qumran near what was once an ancient settlement of a sectarian Jewish community (most probably the Essenes, although some think it was something else), located on the shores of the Dead Sea in Jordan.

Anyways, of each book of the Old Testament Bible (with the exception of Esther) we have quite a number of manuscripts (which means handwritten books)... For example, of the book of Genesis, we have 19 individual manuscripts (some of them fragmentary I would emphasize), of Exodus 17 mss., Jeremiah has 6, Isaiah has 21 and of the book of Daniel, we have 8 different manuscripts, found in different caves, written in two different languages, Hebrew and Aramaic. Many of them are in different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and even Greek (albeit in relatively smaller numbers). The largest number of manuscripts we have out of all the books of the Bible is Psalms, of which we have 36 of them and second is Deuteronomy, of which we have 30 of them. This should obviously tell us as to which books of the Bible were most valued and used in the community: Obviously Psalms (as they were audible sung) would preeminently hold the first place, followed by Deuteronomy (as it contains important precepts of the Jewish law and life).

Amongst the collection, my favorite would have to be the Book of Isaiah. There's a complete copy of Isaiah called "The Great Isaiah Scroll" by scholars (pictured above this post). It dates to about 150-100 years before the birth of Christ! It is interesting to read and examine what it has to say with regards to the prophecies of Christ's suffering. Below, I will paste the text from Isaiah 53, translated into English by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter flint and Eugene Ulrich from their book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible". Here you will read for yourself one of the most important chapters of the Book of Isaiah concerning the prophecies of Christ from a scroll written almost 150 years before Jesus' birth:

"Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a tender plant, and like a root out of a dry ground; he had no form and he had no majesty that we should look at him, and had no attractiveness that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by others, and a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering; and like one from whom people hide their faces and we despised him, and we did not value him. Surely he has borne our sufferings, and carried our sorrows; yet we considered him stricken, and struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, and he was crushed for our iniquities, and the punishment that made us whole was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each of us, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, as a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. From detention and judgment he was taken away-and who can even think about his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living, he was stricken for the transgression of my people. Then they made his grave with the wicked, and with rich people his tomb-although he had done no violence, nor was any deceit found in his mouth.
Yet the Lord was willing to crush him, and he made him suffer. Although you make his soul an offering for sin, and he will see his offspring, and he will prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will triumph in his hand. Out of the suffering of his soul he will see light, and find satisfaction. And through his knowledge his servant, the righteous one, will make many righteous, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore will I allot him a portion with the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong; because he poured out his life to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for their transgressions." Isaiah 53

I just can't wait to go to the Museum and finally gaze upon these priceless treasures for the first time with my own eyes.

God bless you all,
Br. Leo

Is God's grace given to Scythians as well?

"There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all" (Colossians 3:11).

Who are these Scythians that Paul mentions as being sure recipients of God's grace and God's mercy? The Scythians were a horse-riding nomadic people, who dwelt in modern day Russia (north of Caucasus mountains). They were of ancient Iranian descent, and were noted by their Greek counterparts for their barbarity, cruelty, bloodthirstiness, and vindictiveness.
Therefore, it is truly remarkable that God's grace would extend even to the most savage of men. If they could enter into God's everlasting covenant, if they could receive salvation just as equally as any other "civilized" nation or a people, then certainly God's grace is unlimited! Reading about these people helps me to see God's lovingkindness even to the most wretched. If the Scythians could be redeemed, certainly anyone can. Here, I will quote the Greek historian Herodotus, who describes the war customs of these people:

"As regards war, the Scythian custom is for every man to drink the blood of the first man he kills. The heads of all enemies killed in battle are taken to the king; if he brings a head, a soldier is admitted to his share of the loot; no head, no loot. He strips the skin off the head by making a circular cut around the ears and shaking out the skull; he then scrapes the flesh off the skin with the rib of an ox, and when it is clean works it in his fingers until it is supple, and fit to be used as a sort of handkerchief. He hangs these handkerchiefs on the bridle of his horse, and is very proud of them. The finest fellow is the man who has the greatest number.
Many Scythians sew a number of scalps together and make cloaks out of them, like the ones peasants wear, and often, too, they take the skin, nails and all, off the right hands and arms of dead enemies and use it to cover their quivers with-having discovered the fact that human skin is not only tough, but white, as white as almost any skin. Sometimes they flay a whole body, and stretch the skin on a wooden frame which they carry around with them when they ride. They have a special way of dealing with the actual skulls-not with all of them, but only those of their worst enemies: they saw off the part below the eyebrows, and after cleaning out what remains stretch a piece of rawhide round it on the outside. If a man is poor, he is content with that, but a rich man goes further and gilds the inside of the skull as well. In either case the skull is then used to drink from. They treat the skulls of their kinsmen in the same way, in cases where quarrels have occured and a man has been beaten in fight in the presence of the king. When important visitors arrive, these skulls are passed round and the host tells the story of them: how they were once his relatives and made war against him, and how he defeated them-all of which passes for a proof of courage. Once a year the governor of each district mixes a bowl of wine, from which every Scythian who has killed his man in battle has the right to drink. Those who have no dead enemy to their credit are not allowed to touch the wine, but have to sit by themselves in disgrace-the worst, indeed, which they can suffer. Any man, on the contrary, who has killed a great many enemies, has two cups and drinks from both of them at once" (Herodotus, Histories 4:65-66).

If you thought living under an "Islamic regime" was bad, well, you just haven't read enough of history or have known enough of the world in which we live, to know that there are always people who excel in wickedness far beyond others. But God shows no distinction in His mercy, and in His love for the world; He sent His son to die for Greek, Jew and Scythian alike. The Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost. As awful as the Scythians were, God still loved them. He still cared for that savage tribe who used their enemies' skulls as wine goblets. The light of the gospel has shone on them as much as it has for the rest of the "civilized" world of the Greeks and the Romans.