Question 250: Did Yeshua abrogate the Law?

Answer:

In Matthew 5:17-20 Yeshua was explaining that He did not come to abrogate but to fulfil the Law - to unfold its true spiritual meaning. In verse 19, the thing spoken of, as commentators explain, is not "the practical breaking or disobeying of the Law, but annulling or enervating its obligation by a vicious system of interpretation and teaching others to do the same; so the thing threatened is not exclusion from heaven and still less the lowest place in it, but a degraded and contemptuous position in the present stage of the Kingdom of YHVH - in other words, they shall be reduced, by the retributive providence that overtakes them, to the same condition of dishonour to which their false system of teaching has brought down the eternal principles of YHVH's Law." On the other hand, those who so teach that they exalt and honour YHVH's authority, shall be honoured in the Kingdom in due proportion. It is therefore a rebuke to the outward and formal righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, who neglect the inward, vital and spiritual.

Question 249: What is meant by “poor in spirit”?

Answer:

The simple meaning of this passage (Matthew 5:3) is that it is the humble soul that gets blessed. And the higher a saint gets in the divine life the humbler he will be. Spiritual progress which is not accompanied by humility is progress in the wrong direction. This is one of the distinctive points of Moshiach's doctrine; at the very threshold of the believer’s life, the believers gives up his self-confidence; he surrenders all hope of making himself righteous and gives himself to Moshiach to be made righteous. And his highest attainment can be expressed in the words of Paul: "I am crucified with Moshiach; nevertheless, I live, yet not I, but Moshiach liveth in me."

Question 248: What is implied in Yeshua’ Words “see the Son of Man Coming in His Kingdom”?

Answer:

This passage is frequently misunderstood. Mark has the clearer version: "Till they see the Kingdom of YHVH come with power" (which is the more explicit) and Luke: "Till they see the Kingdom." Yeshua is believed to have had reference to the realization of the firm establishment and victorious progress of the new Kingdom of Moshiach during the lifetime of some then present. He did not refer here to His second coming, but to the founding and triumphant extension of that work, the acceptance of which by the world was to be the grand pledge of His return.

Question 247: Does any parallel to Elohiym’s Prayer Exist?

Answer:

Some commentators have claimed that the Prayer is based upon expressions and sentiments already familiar to the Jews and that parallel phrases may be found in the Talmud, but this does not detract from its beauty and originality as a whole.

Frequently asked questions and answers:

Question 246: Why do we have different versions of Elohiym’s prayer?

Answer:

There is no absolute evidence that the prayer was taught on one occasion only. Matthew reports it as given during the Sermon on the Mount and Luke (who was not one of the twelve) places its delivery after the close of the Galilean ministry, but mentioning no time or place. Many of the best scholars regard the position of the prayer in Matthew as unhistorical and give the preference to Luke, although it by no means follows that even he gives the original form. If delivered on more than one occasion, the prayer may have had one form for a small group of disciples and another form for the whole body of Yeshua' followers. And this might account for the presence of a clause in one version which was absent in the other. The word "trespasses" may be regarded simply as a variant. Furthermore, it is conjectured that Luke made certain changes in the expressions of the prayer, to make its meaning clearer to Gentile hearers. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, is the first writer who expressly mentions the use of Elohiym's Prayer in religious worship, but it was not generally used in churches during the early days. There is no evidence that it was employed by the apostles. Luke omits the closing doxology and although it appears in Matthew's Gospel as we now have it, it is not to be found in any of the early manuscripts and is probably an interpolation due to liturgical use.

Question 245: In what language did Moshiach speak?

Answer:

The common language at that time was Aramaic, a Syro-Chaldaic dialect. After the Babylonian captivity it supplanted the original Hebrew, although the latter continued in use for ecclesiastical documents. It is reasonable to believe that Moshiach used Aramaic, as the people would not have understood Him had He spoken any other language. Matthew is commonly believed to have been written in Aramaic and the other three in Greek. The commercial and literary language of the day was Greek. Neither Luke nor John was an uneducated man. Both would be likely to know Greek. Mark too, as a young Jew of some standing, would probably know the language.

Question 244: What is the meaning of the name Yeshua?

Answer:

The name "Yeshua" is the name by which the Saviour is preferably known in the Gospels. "Moshiach" is used as a proper name in the Epistles, but in the Gospels, except in rare instances, such as Matthew 1:1; Mark 1:1; Luke 2:11; John 1:17 there is found not the familiar "Moshiach" but "The Moshiach." The later combination of the two names, "Yeshua Moshiach," is found only in John (John 17:3) and after the resurrection (Acts 2:38, 3:6). "Yeshua" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Yeshua." "Yeshua" means Deliverer and the divine selection of the name is indicated in Matthew 1:21 - "He shall save His people from their sins." “Moshiach” in Hebrew is Mashiach and “the Moshiach” is HaMashiach

Question 243: Why is Yeshua sometimes called the Son of Man and sometimes the Son of YHVH?

Answer:

It is held that Yeshua, in applying to Himself the title Son of Man, intended to emphasize His humanity and His representative character. The Jews were looking for a Messiah who would raise Israel to the head of the nations; Yeshua wished to impress the disciples with the fact that He was representative of the whole human race and not of the Jews only. Then too, to have spoken openly of Himself as the Son of YHVH would have been at once to exasperate the Jews and bring upon Himself a charge of blasphemy, as in the end it did (see John 10:36). The title Son of Man, was not open to that danger, as it was expressive of lowliness, humility and identification with humanity. In using it however, Yeshua did not withdraw His claim to be the Son of YHVH. When the High Priest put Him on His oath (see Matthew 26:63-65) He acknowledged that He was the Son of YHVH.

Question 242: What were the characteristics of Yeshua that made Him so worthy of following?

Answer:

He was altogether lovely, Song of Solomon 5:16; holy, righteous, good, faithful, true, just, guileless and sinless, spotless, innocent, harmless (Luke 1:35; Acts 4:27; Isaiah 53:11; Matthew 19:16; Isaiah 11:5; John 1:14; John 7:18; Zechariah 9:9; John 5:30; Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22; John 8:46; 1 Peter 1 :19; Matthew 27:4.). He was forgiving, Luke 23:34; merciful, Hebrews 2 :17 and loving, John 13:1, 15:13; compassionate and benevolent, Isaiah 40:11; Luke 19:41; Matthew 4:23, 24; Acts 10:38. He was meek, lowly in heart; patient, humble and long suffering, Matthew 11:29, 27:14; 1 Timothy 1:16; Luke 22:27. Though zealous, He was resigned, resisted temptation and was obedient to YHVH the Father, even as He had been subject to His parents in His youth (Luke 2:49, 22:42; John 4:34, 15:10; Luke 2:57).

Frequently asked questions and answers:

Question 241: Was the ascension in human form?

Answer:

The visible resurrection was essential as a demonstration of his victory over death. The facts of the ascension are so well authenticated in numerous passages, that they are accepted by all denominations of the Church. It was a bodily ascension, visible to the multitudes, as far as human eye could penetrate. What change may have occurred in the spiritualizing of His body, in its preparation for His place on YHVH's right hand, we may only conjecture. The best commentators hold that "though Moshiach rose with the same body in which He died, it acquired, either at His resurrection or at His ascension and without the loss of identity, the attributes of a spiritual body, as distinguished from a natural body; of an incorruptible, as distinguished from a corruptible, body." See Philippians 3:21; Colossians 3:4.