The Todah Sacrifice: From Shadow to Substance

The following a copy of the article The Todah Sacrifice: From Shadow to Substance by Jacob Michael from his now defunct site lumengentleman.com

Link to this article by referencing this address:
http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=57

There are several different classes of sacrifice outlined and described in the books of the Mosaic Law. The book of Leviticus in particular describes the Holocaust Offering, the Cereal Offering, the Sin Offering, the Guilt Offering, and the Peace Offering as general categories of sacrifices.

Within this last category, the Peace Offering, there is a particular kind of Peace Offering that is described in Leviticus 7:11-21. This offering is called by Leviticus the "thank offering," or the todah (toh-DAW) sacrifice. Leviticus describes it as follows:

If he offers [the Peace Offering] for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the todah offering unleavened cakes mixed with oil, unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of fine flour well mixed with oil. With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving he shall bring his offering with cakes of leavened bread. And of such he shall offer one cake from each offering, as an offering to the LORD; it shall belong to the priest who throws the blood of the peace offerings.
And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. (Lev. 7:12-15)

The todah is described in this text as a regular Peace Offering (i.e., a blood sacrifice) to which is appended the offering of leavened bread. The one offering the sacrifice would, as with all Peace Offerings, share in eating the meat and bread of the todah sacrifice.

Since the Peace Offering in general was meant to signify a shared shalom between God and the one offering, a person who was unclean could not offer this sacrifice: "but the person who eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the LORD's peace offerings while an uncleanness is on him, that person shall be cut off from his people. And if any one touches an unclean thing ... and then eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the LORD's peace offerings, that person shall be cut off from his people." (Lev. 7:20-21)

In the Psalms we find a kind of general outline of the todah sacrifice:

Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving [todah; LXX: thusian aineseos], and pay your vows to the Most High; and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me. (Ps. 50:13-15)

With the mention of "vows," calling upon God in times of trouble, being delivered by Him, and then glorifying Him for His deliverance, we have the basic structure of the todah sacrifice. Hartmut Gese explains:

The thank offering presupposes a specific situation. When someone is rescued from death, from an illness, or from persecution that poses a threat of death, then the divine deliverance is celebrated by a worship service built on a thank offering as a new foundation for the person's existence. Here he confesses ... God as deliverer in a thank offering (todah). He invites those who belong to his immediate community, contributes an animal for this particular zebah ["sacrifice" --jm] of thanksgiving, and in the meal offering celebrates with those invited the start of his new being. The essential element is that the thankful acknowledgement of God is expressed in a so-called song of thanks of the individual, which refers back to the time of troubles and "thinks on" (zkr) the deliverance and the experience of death and salvation. (Hartmut Gese, Essays on Biblical Theology [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1981], p. 129)

Keeping this framework in mind, we now have a lens through which to view the Psalms, and through this lens, it is not difficult at all to pick out certain Psalms that may be classified as todah Psalms. A perfect example of this would be Psalm 69:

Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me. I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched. My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God ... I have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother's sons. For zeal for thy house has consumed me, and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me. (Ps. 69:1-3, 8-9)

From this lament, the Psalmist moves on to petition God for deliverance and vindication:

But as for me, my prayer is to thee, O LORD. At an acceptable time, O God, in the abundance of thy steadfast love answer me. With thy faithful help rescue me from sinking in the mire; let me be delivered from my enemies and from the deep waters. Let not the flood sweep over me, or the deep swallow me up, or the pit close its mouth over me. Answer me, O LORD, for thy steadfast love is good; according to thy abundant mercy, turn to me. Hide not thy face from thy servant; for I am in distress, make haste to answer me. Draw near to me, redeem me, set me free because of my enemies! (Ps. 69:13-17)

Lastly, the Psalmist proclaims his trust in God for deliverance, and witnesses to his brethren of his hope in God:

I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify him with thanksgiving [todah. This will please the LORD more than an ox or a bull with horns and hoofs. Let the oppressed see it and be glad; you who seek God, let your hearts revive. For the LORD hears the needy, and does not despise his own that are in bonds. Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and everything that moves therein. For God will save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah; and his servants shall dwell there and possess it; the children of his servants shall inherit it, and those who love his name shall dwell in it. (Ps. 69:30-36)

Likewise, Psalm 116 follows the pattern of todah, and actually makes specific reference to the thank offering. The Psalmist begins by saying, "the snares of death encompassed me; the pangs of Sheol laid hold on me; I suffered distress and anguish" (vs. 3), moving on to recount his petition, "then I called on the name of the LORD" (vs. 4), and then recounting his deliverance: "Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; our God is merciful. The LORD preserves the simple; when I was brought low, he saved me. Return, O my soul, to your rest; for the LORD has dealt bountifully with you. For thou hast delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling." (vss. 5-8)

In answer to the question, "What shall I render to the LORD for all his bounty to me?" (vs. 12), the Psalmist mentions the todah as the way in which he will glorify God's saving work: "I will lift up the cup of salvation [LXX: poterion soteriou] and call on the name of the LORD, I will pay my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people ... I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving [LXX: thusian aineseos] and call on the name of the LORD. I will pay my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people." (vss. 13-18)

Take note of the poetic parallelism between vss. 13-14 and vss. 17-18, where the todah sacrifice is interchanged with the "cup of salvation":

1) I will lift up the cup of salvation
2) and call on the name of the LORD
3) I will pay my vows to the LORD
4) in the presence of all his people

1) I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving
2) and call on the name of the LORD
3) I will pay my vows to the LORD
4) in the presence of all his people

Fr. James Swetnam notes this parallel and says that this indicates that a cup of wine was also included in a todah sacrifice:

The toda ceremony was a type of thanksgiving offering associated with a bloody sacrifice. Both bloody sacrifice and toda ceremony are offered by someone who has escaped from the danger of death, serious illness, or life-threatening persecution. An essential element is a hymn of thanksgiving which serves to recall the salvation achieved. The toda ceremony involves such a hymn of thanksgiving plus the offering of leavened bread, and it can involve a cup of wine which serves as the ceremonial proclamation parallel to the bread which is the ceremonial meal. The Psalter indicates that the toda had an importance difficult to exaggerate in the religious life of Israel ... In the toda meal the bread offering had a special place (Lev 7,12-15). The use of wine had a prominent part (in Ps 116 vv. 17-18 [LXX 115,8-9] with mention of the toda ... are parallel to vv. 13-14 [LXX 115,4-6] with mention of the 'cup of salvation' ...). (Swetnam, J., "The Crux at Hebrews 5,7-8", Biblica, Vol. 81 [2000], p. 358, 359, emphasis added)

In the prophetic age, we find mention of a future "eschatological todah sacrifice." Isaiah says that in the last days, "the LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before his elders he will manifest his glory." (Is. 24:23) The mention of God revealing His glory "before his elders" on a mountain (Zion, in this case) recalls the words of Exodus 24:

Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel ... they beheld God, and ate and drank. (Ex. 24:9-11)

Corresponding to the eating and drinking of the elders on Mount Sinai, Isaiah says that at this future gathering on Mount Zion, "the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined." (Is. 25:6) This section of Isaiah's prophecy, appropriately enough, begins with a kind of todah-style song of thanksgiving:

O LORD, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things, plans formed of old, faithful and sure. For thou hast made the city a heap, the fortified city a ruin; the palace of aliens is a city no more, it will never be rebuilt. Therefore strong peoples will glorify thee; cities of ruthless nations will fear thee. For thou hast been a stronghold to the poor, a stronghold to the needy in his distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat; for the blast of the ruthless is like a storm against a wall, like heat in a dry place. Thou dost subdue the noise of the aliens; as heat by the shade of a cloud, so the song of the ruthless is stilled. (Is. 25:1-5)

Further, in a very Messianic prophecy of Jeremiah, we find God speaking of future "glory days" for Jerusalem:

But if you listen to me, says the LORD ... then there shall enter by the gates of this city kings who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their princes, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and this city shall be inhabited for ever. And people shall come from the cities of Judah and the places round about Jerusalem, from the land of Benjamin, from the Shephelah, from the hill country, and from the Negeb, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices, cereal offerings and frankincense, and bringing thank offerings [LXX: ferontes ainesin] to the house of the LORD. (Jer. 17:24-26)

In light of these kinds of Messianic/last-days prophecies, in which the todah seems to have some prominence, Gese says:

We can understand the verdict of the ancient rabbis, "In the coming (messianic) age all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering will never cease; all (religious) songs will cease, but the songs of thanks will never cease." [Pesiqta ed. S. Buber, 1868, p. 79a; e. B. Mandelbaum, 1962, I, p. 159] (Gese, p. 133)

Fr. Swetnam, in his article in Biblica ("The Crux at Hebrews 5,7-8," cited above), shows how the todah sacrifice is taken up in the New Testament and brought to its fulfillment in the Sacrifice of the Cross.

It is very much significant that one of the seven last sayings of Our Lord from the Cross is a quotation from one of the most well-known todah Psalms:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama sabach-thani?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)

This is the opening line of Psalm 22, which is not only another perfect example of the todah structure, but is, along with Psalm 69 (already cited), one of the most explicit Messianic Psalms which predict the Passion of the Christ. Note the movement from lament to thanksgiving in these verses, as well as the references to the Passion:

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer; and by night, but find no rest ... All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; "He committed his cause to the LORD; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!" [c.f. Matt. 27:39-43] ... I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax, it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws; thou dost lay me in the dust of death. Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet-- I can count all my bones--they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots ...
I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee: You who fear the LORD, praise him! all you sons of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you sons of Israel! For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him ...
For dominion [meluwkah, LXX: basileia, "kingdom"] belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations. Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he who cannot keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it. (Ps. 22:1-2, 7-8, 14-18, 22-24, 28-31)

This particular todah is frequently linked by the New Testament writers to the Passion. We have already seen that the opening words are quoted by Our Lord on the Cross; St. John, in his narrative of the Passion, quotes verse 18 (c.f. John 19:24); St. Paul quotes verse 22 in a certain kingdom-context ("we see Jesus ... crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death") in Hebrews 2:9-12. To get a clearer view of todah in relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross, Fr. Swetnam's insights are particularly helpful:

Toda-piety's basic experience of death and redemption took on, in the perspective of apocalyptic, the dimensions of an absolute, and salvation from death led to the conversion of the world, to the participation of the dead in life, and to the eternal proclamation of salvation (Ps 22[21],8-32). (Note the occurrence of 'kingdom' - basileia - in v. 29.) The cry of Jesus at Mt 27,46 and Mk 15,34 in which He cites the opening verse of Ps 22[21] is designed to indicate not that God had abandoned the petitioner, but that salvation through death - Jesus' death - is the occasion for the arrival of the Kingdom of God as interpreted in Ps 22[21]. Abandonment by God is a common theme in the psalms, and it is difficult to see what the distinctive purpose of the citation of the opening verse could be if not an indication of this abandonment in the context of the entire psalm, i.e., an abandonment which leads to the advent of the Kingdom. (Swetnam, pp. 358-359)

There are those who would object to the idea that, when Our Lord quotes the opening line of Psalm 22, it is with the intention of communicating the entire message of the Psalm. That is to say, the words "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" should not be interpreted to mean that God the Father abandoned the Son during His hour of Passion, but rather, those words are meant to propel us forward to the words "he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him."

Objectors to this view must answer the counter objection suggested by Swetnam: there are many Psalms which speak of abandonment by God. Consider:

Hide not thy face from me. Turn not thy servant away in anger, thou who hast been my help. Cast me not off, forsake me not, O God of my salvation! (Ps. 27:9) Do not forsake me, O LORD! O my God, be not far from me! Make haste to help me, O Lord, my salvation! (Ps. 38:21-22)
I will praise thee with an upright heart, when I learn thy righteous ordinances. I will observe thy statutes; O forsake me not utterly! (Ps. 119:7-8)
Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me. (Ps. 51:11)

Our Lord could have quoted any one of these or several other verses, had His desire been to express the fact that He feared abandonment by God - why did He pass over these in favor of Ps. 22:1, a Psalm which just coincidentally is a todah Psalm of praise and deliverance? It is entirely too coincidental that this particular Psalm includes so many explicit prophecies of Our Lord's suffering on the Cross, and that these sufferings culminate (just as the Psalm does) in the coming "kingdom" of God.

Having established the link between todah and the Crucifixion, however, it becomes very difficult to miss the link between todah and the Last Supper - precisely because it is impossible to miss the connection (even if viewed as only casual) between the Cross and the Upper Room.

By way of a side-tangent, we must recall for ourselves just how saturated in sacrificial context is the Upper Room narrative. The historical/liturgical context of the Upper Room narrative is the Passover Feast, which itself was a sacrificial meal involving the slaughter of an animal and the eating of bread and wine; the phrase "do this for an anamnesis of me" recalls the particular category of Old Testament sacrifice known as the "memorial offering"; the words "this is the New Covenant in my blood" is an echo of Moses' words to a newly inaugurated ecclesia of Hebrews, when he sprinkled the blood of a slaughtered bull upon the people and said, "this is the blood of the covenant" (c.f. Ex. 24:1-8); finally, the description of the chalice as "blood which is poured out for you" evokes another category of sacrifice in Israel, namely, the libation offering which was intended to be "poured out" at the base of the altar.

To return to the discussion of the todah, we see the link between Calvary and the Upper Room in that fact that, in the Upper Room, Our Lord offered (using overtly sacrificial language that recalled both bloody and unbloody categories of Old Covenant sacrifice) precisely those two elements that are present at the todah sacrifice: the bread and the cup of wine.

The connection between the three (todah, Calvary, and the Upper Room) becomes even more focused and clear when we consider that the three elements of the todah are accounted for in the combination of both Calvary and the Upper Room.

To put it another way: if we view the Upper Room as the beginning of the Sacrifice of Christ, and Calvary as the completion of the Sacrifice, then what we have is one continuous sacrificial action that corresponds exactly to the several parts of the todah sacrifice. In the todah, there was the offering of bread and wine, but also the blood of a sacrificial animal; if we see the Upper Room and Calvary as bookends of the same singular sacrifice, then in the bread and wine of the Upper Room we can account for the bloodless sacrifice of the todah, while in the pierced body of Our Lord on the Cross we account for the bloody aspect of the todah sacrifice.

The similarities are too rich to be passed over. It was because of the bloody sacrifice of the animal on the altar that the offerer could then participate in the meal of bread and wine, which signified his harmonious relationship with God; however, the meal of bread and wine was not an afterthought, but was clearly understood in Levitical terms to be a part of the sacrifice proper.

This bloody-unbloody combination contained in one single sacrifice has but one counter-part in the New Covenant: "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." (Council of Trent, DS #1743)

Recall also that the perpetual offering of the todah sacrifice - a bloody-unbloody sacrifice involving bread and wine - was understood by the rabbis to be a sign of the Messianic age (see quote above). What else can it mean when Our Lord, the Messiah, comes to earth to offer His body as a bloody sacrifice, but prefaces this by first offering bread and wine - which He calls His body and blood, thus clearly making it one sustained sacrificial act with that of Calvary - and tells His disciples to continue this act ad infinitum until the end of time - except that the Sacrifice of the Mass is one with the supernatural and elevated todah sacrifice of the New Covenant?

The early Church understood this, and perhaps this is why the term applied to the weekly liturgical sacrifice was nothing less than the Greek translation of the word todah. In Hebrew, todah means "thanksgiving"; in Greek, the word is eucharistia, or in English, "Eucharist."

The understanding of the Church as regards the todah sacrifice and its connection to the Mass could not be stated more clearly than what we find in the Roman Liturgy. Just prior to the drinking of the Precious Blood of Our Lord, the priest recites the prayer Quid retribuam Domino ... - the very verses discussed above, belonging to the todah Psalm 116:

What return shall I make to the Lord for all He has given to me? I will take the chalice of salvation, and call upon the Name of the Lord. Praising I will call upon the Lord, and I shall be saved from my enemies. (Communion of the Priest, Roman Missal)

This is clearly what the Church wants us to see in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: the todah of the Old Covenant, which was both a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice, which the rabbis said would be a perpetual sacrifice (to the exlusion of all other sacrifices) in the Messianic age, is to be found in no other place than on the high altar at every single Eucharistic Liturgy, where the bloody sacrifice of Calvary is perpetuated in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.

This is, perhaps, what St. Paul was referring to in the epistle to the Hebrews, "let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise [thusian aineseos] to God, that is, the fruit [karpos] of lips that acknowledge his name." (Heb. 13:15) Can we overlook the fact that St. Paul uses exactly the terminology that is found in the Old Testament to describe the todah sacrifice? Or that the work karpos can mean "praises, which are presented to God as a thank offering?" (C.f. Strong's #2590)

This final and fulfilled todah sacrifice, offered by Our Lord both in the Upper Room and on the Cross, and perpetually offered by the Church in the re-presentation of Calvary via the Sacrifice of the Mass, is the sacrifice to which the Old Covenant todah sacrifice - and indeed all sacrifices of the Old Covenant - pointed, and in which it finds its telos.

Panem coelestem accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo ...

Jacob Michael

The King Who Would Be Priest: The Son of David and the Holy Eucharist

The following is an article from the now defunct website Lumengentleman by Jacob Michael


In St. Luke's account of the Last Supper, we encounter a curious anomaly. As He prepares to serve the Passover meal, Our Lord says:

I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God ... I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." (Luke 22:15-18)

However, after telling His disciples that He will not eat or drink of the Passover until "the kingdom of God comes," we read:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (vs. 19-20)

The difficulty is this: if Jesus said He would not eat or drink with His disciples until the kingdom had arrived, and then proceeded to eat and drink with them anyway, in what sense may we say that the kingdom of God had arrived on earth, there in the Upper Room?
The prophets had promised that, when the Messiah would come, he would rule as a Son of David from the throne of David, and restore the Kingdom of David by reuniting all twelve of the tribes of Israel under one single head:

One Nation, One Davidic King
I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all sides ... and I will make them one nation in the land ... and one king shall be king over them all; and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms ... My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. (Ezek. 37:21-24) The King Will Rule from David's Throne Forever
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given ... Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. (Is. 9:6-7)

But what kind of king was David? What kind of king was the first Son of David, Solomon? For that matter, why did David set up the political and religious capital of his kingdom in Jerusalem?
We must travel back, now, to the early days of the history of the patriarchs.
In the days of Abraham, we encounter a mysterious (for the modern-day reader - not for the ancient Jews) figure, a priest-king named Melchizedek:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Gen. 14:18-20)

Who is this Melchizedek? His name is a compound of two Hebrew words, melek = "king", and tsedeq = "righteousness." He was, the text tells us, the king of shalem, the Hebrew word meaning "peace." Not only was he the king of Salem, he was also the "priest of God Most High," a priest who brought out "bread and wine."
I said a moment ago that the identity of Melchizedek is only a mystery for modern readers, but not for the ancient Jews, and this is true. We find in the targums (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament) that Melchizedek's identity was taken for granted - he was Shem, Noah's firstborn son:

And Malka Zadika, who was Shem bar Noah, the king of Yerushalem, came forth to meet Abram, and brought forth to him bread and wine. (Targum Psuedo-Jonathan, Sec. III, Genesis XIV)

So we see that Mechizedek is a king, but also a priest, who offers bread and wine, and is identified with Shem, the only righteous firstborn son in the Old Testament.
That he is king of shalem is significant as well, for this city is identified in Scripture as nothing less than the city of Jerusalem. Note the use of synonymous parallelism in this Psalm:

In Judah God is known
His name is great in Israel. His abode has been established in Salem
His dwelling place in Zion. (Ps. 76:1-2)

A brief recollection of Abraham's life will show us the connection between the two cities. After Abraham attempted to offer his son Isaac on Mount Moriah, but was prevented by God, he gave thanks that God had provided a substitute sacrificial ram, and the text tells us, "Abraham called the name of that place The LORD will See to It." In Hebrew, that name is rendered Yehovah yireh.
Now, where is Mount Moriah, the place Abraham was standing when he said "this place is called Yehovah yireh?" We know from 2 Chronicles exactly where Mount Moriah is:

Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to David his father. (2 Chr. 3:1)

Let's put the pieces together, then:
1) Moriah is in Jerusalem
2) Moriah is where Abraham offered Isaac
3) Jerusalem used to be known as Salem
4) Melchizedek was the king of Salem
5) Abraham renamed the place Yehovah yireh
6) This name was appended to the current name, so that the compound name became Yirah-Salem, or "Jeru-salem."
7) Therefore, Melchizedek was a priest-king in Jerusalem
8) Abraham offered Isaac in Jerusalem
9) David later became king and set up his political-religious capital in Jerusalem
All of this leads us to expect - to anticipate - what we find in Psalm 110, which is the only other place in the Old Testament where Melchizedek is mentioned.
Significantly, this Psalm was a coronation hymn that would be sung at the enthronement of the Son of David. You can envision the scene: as the newly crowned Davidic King ascends to the throne, the choirs sing this song:

YAHWEH says to my adonai: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." ...
YAHWEH has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." (Ps. 110:1, 4)

What an odd declaration to sing to the new king as he ascends to the throne! You are a priest?!
But that is precisely what the Davidic Kingship entailed. In the book of Deuteronomy, God made a concession to Israel in a proleptic, anticipatory way - He knew that when they came into the land, they would want a king to rule them, so that they could be like all the other nations. God, foreseeing this, gave them certain parameters within which they could work:

When you come to the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me"; you may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose ... Only he must not multiply horses for himself ... And he shall not multiply wives for himself ... nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold. And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in the charge of the Levitical priests ... and he shall read in it all the days of his life ... that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren ... (Deut. 17:14-20)

The king, the Son of David, was to be steeped in the written Law and to possess his own copy of it, which was - notice - a privilege of the Levitical priests. In all things, he was to ensure that "his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren" - in other words, he was to be a servant.
The paradox of the Davidic Kingship - indeed, of the Kingship of Melchizedek, and even of the natural kingship of the father in the patriarchal home - was that the king should exercise his superior authority precisely by serving as an inferior would.
I repeat: the king most clearly and powerfully exercised his authority when he acted as a priest in the service of his people.
Thus, when Solomon (whose name itself is linked to Melchizedek - one was king of Shalem [peace], and the other was a king named Shalomohn [peace]) ascended to the throne, he did so as a servant:
1) For his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he rode upon David's mule, not on a noble white horse (1 Kings 1:38-40)
2) He built the temple for God, along with all of the holy vessels and utensils (1 Kings 6-7) - normally something the Levites would do, as they did during the exodus
3) At the dedication of the temple, it is Solomon who prays the high-priestly prayer (1 Kings 8:22-53)
4) On that same occasion, Solomon is the one who offers sacrifices to God (1 Kings 8:63-64)
5) After dedicating the temple, it is Solomon who performs the priestly act of blessing the people (1 Kings 8:54-61)
6) Because God blessed Solomon with great wisdom, it is he who became a priestly mediator of God's Torah to the nations (1 Kings 10:1, 24)
Unfortunately, the glory days of Solomon's reign as the ideal king-priest were not to last. God had prohibited three things for the king: 1) multiplying gold, 2) multiplying horses, 3) and multiplying wives. We see from 1 Kings 9-11 that Solomon slowly-but-completely violated each of those prohibitions.
We read that "Solomon gathered together ... fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horsemen" (1 Kings 10:26). Worse, he violated the specific prohibition in Deuteronomy 17, "he must not ... cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses" (vs. 16), as we read, "And Solomon's import of horses was from Egypt." (1 Kings 10:28)
Not only did Solomon multiply gold for himself, we read the rather apocalyptic statement that "the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold." (1 Kings 10:14)
By the time we reach chapter 11, the process of decay is completed, as we read the opening words: "Now King Solomon loved many foreign women." He amassed 700 wives and 300 concubines, who "turned away his heart after other gods." (vs. 4) The litany of idolatry that follows is painful, especially considering the unique status as priest-king that Solomon had previously enjoyed:

Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. ... Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. (1 Kings 11:5-6)

You do the math. Seven hundred wives, plus 300 concubines - and Solomon built shrines and alters for each of the gods and goddesses that his wives worshiped. We're talking about thousands and thousands of idolatrous shrines, alters, high places, etc. What happened to Solomon, the priest-king after the order of Melchizedek?!
In a word, he started acting more like a king, and less like a priest. Even though the greatness of his kingly authority was exercised supremely through his priestly function, he began to lean more toward kingly power (gold, horses, and foreign women through whom he could forge political alliances with other nations) and away from priestly service. As Solomon discovered, when you grab for royal authority and reject priestly service, you lose whatever power you had (Solomon's kingdom was torn in two as a result of his sin) - but when you grab for priestly service, your royal authority is increased in the process. That's the paradox. And that's the lesson that Our Lord was trying to teach His disciples that night in the Upper Room.
We see Jesus, the Son of David, the true Shalomohn, the Davidic Messiah who was to restore the kingdom and reunite the tribes, standing in the Upper Room - doing what? Doing the very thing that the Davidic Kings before him did: offering the todah sacrifice.
Briefly: the todah sacrifice - or "thank offering" - was part of the Levitical "peace offering" described in Lev. 3:1-9 and 7:11-17. It consisted of a bloody sacrifice of either cattle or sheep, and an unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine.
The todah was offered to God in thanksgiving and remembrance for some past deliverance from danger; in fact, the Passover celebration was a perfect example of the todah. A lamb was slaughtered, and bread and wine were consumed, while the one making the offering remembered and gave thanks to God for previously delivering Israel from bondage in Egypt.
Of all the sacrifices offered in the Old Testament, the todah was the predominant sacrifice of the Davidic Kingdom. A good many of the Psalms written were todah Psalms, confessing and proclaiming the greatness of God for some past deliverance - including the famous 22nd Psalm, the Psalm which begins "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", the very Psalm which Our Lord quoted from the Cross.
If todah is Hebrew for thanksgiving, it should come as no surprise that it corresponds to the Greek word for thanksgiving, eucharistia - the Eucharist.
So again, what do we see in St. Luke's account of the Last Supper? We see the Davidic King, the Son of David, offering up the singular and unique sacrifice of David's Kingdom - the todah, the Eucharist.
In so doing, He acts the part of Melchizedek, who also brought out bread and wine, and who also was a priest-king. The early Christians saw the significance of this, and that's why St. Paul refers to Melchizedek nine times in the book of Hebrews - six of which are quotes from the coronation hymn, Psalm 110 - when he compares Jesus to this mysterious and ancient priest-king.
But if Jesus is bringing about the kingdom in the first century, then where is it? To restate the original problem, why does He say "I will not eat or drink with you until the kingdom comes," and then proceeds to eat and drink with them?
The answer lies in the nature of Jesus' kingship, which is a Davidic Kingship, which is a Melchizedekian Kingship, which is a priest-kingship.
St. Luke shows us that the kingdom is the central theme of this Last Supper, because immediately after Our Lord offers the disciples the unbloody todah/eucharist sacrifice of His own body and blood, we read that "a dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest." This was a common dispute amongst the disciples, according to the gospels - they knew Jesus was the Davidic Messiah, and they knew they had been called to help Him usher in the kingdom. So naturally, they wanted to know who would have the highest position of power in this royal arrangement - in fact, this is their explicit question in Matthew 18: "At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, 'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?'" (vs. 1)
That they are clearly thinking of the kingdom here in St. Luke's Gospel is confirmed by the way in which Jesus answers them - He answers by speaking to them of royal hierarchy and kingdoms:

And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves." (vs.25-26)

Our Lord here restates the paradox that governed - or was supposed to govern - the Davidic Kingdom: the most powerful in authority is the one who is most like a servant. The one who is the greatest of kings is the one who most acts likes a priest. And this is the clincher:

For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves. (vs. 27)

Here is the utter mystery of the King - He is unquestionably the king, the ruler, the authority ... and yet, it is as king that He is among them "as one who serves." And what had He just served them? The Eucharist, the todah, the sacrifice that was a hallmark of David's Kingdom.
In acting as a priest there in the Upper Room, in doing what a priest does (offering a sacrifice), Our Lord makes the kingdom a present reality - and then He tells them to "do this" perpetually in imitation of Him (a phrase that only the Gospel of St. Luke records, not including St. Paul's record of the phrase in 1 Cor. 11).
This perfectly explains His next words to His disciples:

I covenant [diatithemai] to you, as my Father covenanted [dietheto] to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (vss. 29-30)

The kingdom is brought to earth in the act of the Davidic King offering the todah sacrifice, in exercising His kingship "as one who serves," but note that this kingdom of His is being handed over to His royal princes. "I covenant to you a kingdom" - but how? With this todah, this Eucharist, this - as He just said a few verses earlier - "new covenant in my blood."
You can see how it all comes together in this one act: He says to them, "this is my blood, and in serving it to you as a meal, I ratify the New Covenant - and in the same act, I covenant to you this kingdom of mine, by telling you to 'do this' as I have done it, and to do it perpetually. I am your king become I am among you as one who serves, and now I am calling you to serve at my table when you 'do this', and in so serving at my table, to eat at my table as princes."
He inaugurates them as royal princes who will judge over twelve tribes (i.e., all of Israel) because He is about to reunite the kingdom, but he makes them princes by first making them priests who are empowered to do what He just did: offer the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
If we know our Old Testament, none of this should be news to us! What Our Lord does here, in bringing His kingdom to earth by performing an act of priestly sacrifice, is exactly what King David did when he inaugurated his kingdom.
All the tribes of Israel come to David to make him their king, and they say: "Behold, we are your bone and flesh." (2 Sam. 5:1)
We then read that "King David made a covenant with them." (vs. 3)
Then, David goes out and conquers the last enemy-held territory of the Promised Land, the city of Jerusalem. The text tells us that "David dwelt in the stronghold [of Jerusalem], and called it the city of David." (vs. 9)
At this precise moment when David is coming into his kingdom, establishing his throne, making a covenant with his people - who call him their "flesh and bone" (hint: that's the marital/covenant language of Adam to Eve in Genesis 2) - he then proceeds to act like a priest.
David goes and retrieves the Ark of the Covenant to bring it into the new political capital of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6). As they bring the Ark to Jerusalem, David does several things that he, strictly as a king, should not have been able to do - things that only a priest could do:
1) When the Ark had gone six paces, David "sacrificed an ox and a fatling"
2) We read that David "was girded with a linen ephod," the garment of the priest
3) The Ark was then placed inside the tabernacle, "which David had pitched for it" - again, pitching the tabernacle was the job of the priests
4) David is then the one who goes into the tabernacle to "[offer] burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD."
5) After the offerings were completed, it is David who "blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts"

At the end of this rather schizophrenic episode in which David can't decide whether he's a priest or a king, he performs an act that is so typologically striking, it nearly makes you lose your breath:

when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he ... distributed among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, to each a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a ['ashiyshah, "flagon of wine"].^* Then all the people departed, each to his house. (vs. 19) ^* Also translated by some versions as "a cake of raisins," which is less in keeping with the nature of the todah sacrifice being offered here

At the inauguration of his kingdom, then, we see David making a covenant with "all Israel" (all twelve tribes), offering sacrifices, and distributing to the congregation 1) bread, 2) meat, 3) wine. These are the three elements of the todah sacrifice, the same three elements of the Passover sacrifice, and a perfect typological symbol of the Eucharist - it is bread and wine, but it is more than bread, it is also "meat indeed" and "drink indeed" (John 6:55).
If David unites all Israel in a new kingdom, and his first royal act is to offer up the todah sacrifice, then it makes complete sense why Jesus, in reuniting the "twelve tribes" (Lk. 22:30), would make the first act of His kingdom an act of todah/eucharistia.
In short, then, the answer to the conundrum posed at the outset of this essay is as follows: Jesus says He will not eat and drink with His disciples until His kingdom comes; He then proceeds to eat and drink the todah sacrifice of His own body and blood, precisely because it is in the act of serving that sacrifice at His own table that His kingdom is made present.
Ubi Rex, ibi Regnum; ubi Eucharistia, ibi Rex.
(Where there is the King, there is the Kingdom; where there is the Eucharist, there is the King)
Jacob Michael

Sacred Sharp and Pointy Object

Mar Ephraim the Syrian tied together the sword of the cherub in Genesis 3:24 and the lance of the Roman Soldier in John 19:34 Blessed be the Merciful One---who saw the lance beside Paradise---which barred the way to the Tree of Life. And he came and took him a body, that was wounded, that by the opening of his side he might open a way INTO PARADISE--St Ephraim the Syrian, Nativity Hymns 8:4 He just unpacks the Tree of Life, the swords, the Tree of Life. Elsewhere, St Ephraim preaching about holy sharp and pointy objects says: The lance of Phineas filled me with fear, that sword, with which he excluded the plague. The lance that guarded the Tree of Life make me joyful yet sad, for it excluded Adam from Life yet excluded the plague from the People. But the lance which wounded JESUS, I grieve for it; he was wounded, and I weep. From Him came forth water and blood; Adam washed, came to life and returned to paradise.--CNis 39,7 Then Cyrillona, St Ephrem's successor and maybe nephew wrote: The sickle cuts the vine and streams of water flow down it; the lance pierced Christ and streams of Mercy flowed to us--Cyrillona, Memra on the Pasch, 363-6 (Syr, Bickell, p 581/; tr. Vona, pp. 111-12)

Mormonism and worshiping Jesus 2 Nephi 25:29

The Mormons sometimes say "we also worship Jesus." However, this is a common careless slip, since Mormonism discourages and rejects Jesus worship and says they only worship Heavenly Father. This is odd since the Book of Mormon gives explicit instructions to worship Jesus:

And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.--2 Nephi 25:29

But the common Mormon response and interpretation is that "worship" means being "in awe of" and "honor." This can be summed up with former LDS member of the Quorum of the Twelve, "Apostle/Elder" Bruce R McConkie who stated:

1. We worship the Father and him only and no one else.
We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.--Bruce R McConkie, Our Relationship with the Lord, March 2, 1982

So to be clear, Mormons only worship "Heavenly Father." Not the Son, and certainly not the Holy Ghost--a person Mormons do not even know where He came from (The Father, a brother of the Father, somewhere else?)

The problem with the usual Mormon interpretation of this verse is that it does fine to explain away one word--worship, but does nothing to explain the rest of the verse that says, "worship him with all your might, mind, and strength." This is obviously something the Bible says about God the Father, a point some LDS know so they construe the verse as being about worship the Father in "Jesus' Name" though the verse is strictly about Jesus. If you are told to worship Jesus with all that you have--your might, mind, and strength, what else is left? That is everything, which means that is the same worship that the Father is to be given! Even, the Doctrine and Covenants, another one of the many Mormon additions to Scripture refers to the same verse in the Torah Deuteronomy 6 when it says:

 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.--Doctrine and Covenants 4:2

And again in,

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength; and in the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt serve him”--Doctrine and Covenants 59:5

To a Mormon when the D&C says "God" that means "heavenly Father." So why is Jesus being given worship that Mormons say should only be given to Heavenly Father? To make things even more confusing--to the LDS Jehovah is the Old Testament name of Jesus, which the D&C often just uses "Lord" for. D&C 59:5 also seems to contradict 2 Nephi 25:29 which says to worship Jesus with all your might, mind and strength, but here in D&C 59:5 it makes a distinction between "Lord the God" and "Jesus Christ" that it says you worship God in the name of. But if we were to look at Deuteronomy 6:4 in Hebrew it uses the word transliterated as Jehovah.

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ 

 יְהוָה is the Hebrew spelling for LORD/Jehovah/YHWH. So, the verse is saying to worship Jesus, is we accept the LDS interpretation Jehovah=Jesus. LDS.org on who Jehovah is, in the

Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel Teacher Manual, 2015 states:

"In testifying of the Savior Jesus Christ, modern prophets have declared: “He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament” (“The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles,” Ensign or Liahona, Apr. 2000, 2). Jesus Christ, as Jehovah, established Heavenly Father’s everlasting gospel on the earth in every dispensation of time in order to gather in every one of God’s children who were lost."--Lesson 5: Jesus Christ Was Jehovah of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel Teacher Manual, 2015

But, even if we were to pretend Jehovah is not meant in the verse in 2 Nephi 25:29, it still renders to Jesus something Latter Day Saint theology says is reserved for Heavenly Father alone.

Jesus, Barabbas, Revolutionaries

 BarAbbas/Bar Abba was a type of the Great Antichrist just like Muhammad. BarAbbas means "son of the father" in Aramaic and his name in some manuscripts (Alexandrian of Matthew 27:17) was also "Jesus." The Nation and the Romans chose a false "son of the father" instead of the Christ. On top of that, Barabbas is described as being in prison for being:

^" a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city, and for murder."--Luke 23:19

A sort of type of the "man of lawlessness" (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Whereas, Jesus accused the money changers being in the temple as turning the House of God into a Though the People certainly did not think of Barabbas as a messiah (though maybe they saw some Messiah potential in him", the fact he was imprisoned for being a "revolutionary" (like the two thieves/revolutionaries that died along side Christ) certainly is more in line with what many in the Israel at the time of Christ and after were looking for--another Judas Maccabeus that would free Israel from pagan rule and reestablish the Jewish nation as a self ruling state. Much of the Jewish clergy convinced the People to pick a wicked man who was called the "son of the father" just like the rabbinate of Rav Akivah's generation 100 years later thought Bar Kozivah [Khokbah] would/did achieve 'messiah status' since he established a led a Jewish revolt that temporarily may have made a Jewish state and made himself hannasi (prince/president) for 3 years before being annihilated by the Romans (again).

Ironically, Jesus was the one that taught people to pay taxes and claimed His kingdom was not of this world, but was betrayed by people who were supposed to be part of His kingdom--the priests and elders of the people and his own apostle--Judas, whose name is symbolic, and his death by having his bowels gush open in a potters field even more symbolic and was how the Nation would suffer for rejecting God and did when the Roman army came and destroyed Jerusalem 40 years later. 40 years also being a symbolic time period of repentance.

Jesus was executed for the same crime he accused other people of (a lot)--being a LEESTEES--robber/thief/revolutionary. Barabba, and the two "thieves" (same word used for a revolutionary) were all convicted of the same crime. Jesus accused people that pushed for his execution beforehand of turning the Temple into a "cave of LEESTON" (robbers/revolutionaries). When Jesus was arrested he even referred to this. John 10 even talks about people trying to steal sheep by sneaking in not using the gate as being a "thief and a robber (leestees)" referring to failed messiahs.

So in the end, Jesus was executed on charges of treason/insurrection by declaring to be a King, although the people hated the Roman King--Caesar, they said he was the real king and must be followed. Jesus the one that told people to pay their taxes and accepted Roman soldiers and tax collectors was executed for treason, and Pilate the governor freed a revolutionary at the urging of the same people that demanded Jesus be executed for being....a revolutionary. So Pilate executed a man that recognized Roman authority and discouraged revolution in order to prevent a revolution, and freed the guy that wanted a revolution.

But, in the end, perhaps Jesus was the biggest threat and biggest revolutionary since after Jesus' died His followers would gain control of the empire, ousting pagan authority, but in order for this to happen--Jesus had to die and resurrect from the dead.

Pilate really had no good solution.

Global Warming, Jehovah Witness, and Earth destroyed by Fire

The North Pole has been expelling gas which in turn causes global warming, but the expelled methane was caused by global warming, and global warming is mostly caused (in my opinion, since Mars experiences the same rate of global warming as the Earth) by the dense ball of burning hydrogen gas we float around called the Sun.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4804
The warmer temperatures in the arctic causes the ice to melt, so all the decomposed plants thaw and convert to methane, which fuels the process that causes more thawing. I wonder if the North Pole will revert back to being a tropical climate like it was millions of years ago. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. The main way we even have ground water supplies in aquafers/aquatards is from cycles of millions of years of climate change that thaws and freezes soil causing layers of water in the earth.
It could be humans are just making climate change go faster, or maybe slower, either way it does not matter, the Earth does what it wants in the end. Land, houses, islands will be lost, glaciers will melt people and animals will die.

Eventually, our sun will burn up more and more hydrogen, and burn progressively hotter until its about out and turn into a red giant start that will literally be so big it burns the Earth up killing anything that survives, then again first pope said the earth and the elements will be burned by fire almost 2000 years ago.

the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be found out... the heavens will be dissolved in flames and the elements melted by fire--2 Peter 3:10,12

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/…/65-what-will-happen-to-l…

The Bible and many of the ancient pagan religions seemed to know we were all at the mercy of the sun which caused people to worship God or the Sun. But in these times humans made themselves into gods and believe they are completely at fault for global warming and think they can end it, too bad the Sun doesn't care what we do, its just going to burn brighter, hotter and get bigger until all burn up. The Pope even recently wrote about the modern issues of Anthropocentrism and relativism when talking about the environment in Laudato Si.



Praised be you, my Lord, with all your creatures,
especially Sir Brother Sun,
who is the day and through whom you give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour;
and bears a likeness of you, Most High.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars,
in heaven you formed them clear and precious and beautiful.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Brother Wind,
and through the air, cloudy and serene, and every kind of weather
through whom you give sustenance to your creatures.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Water,
who is very useful and humble and precious and chaste.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Brother Fire,
through whom you light the night,
and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong--St Francis of Assisi, Canticle of the Creatures, in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents

LDS $3 bill

A picture taken from BYU's webpage, literally showing a $3 bill produced by the Deseret Currency Association--with Mormon Prophet/President/Seer/Revelator Brigham Young signature at the bottom.

 Notice at the top of the note is literally an image of sheep getting fleeced, for those that do not know--Mormonism requires members to pay 10% of their income (among other things) in order to be considered worthy to enter the temple and become a god. In fact, Mormon Sunday schools even to this day say, "pay your tithe or burn." Mormon scripture has Jesus saying,

 "Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming."--Doctrine and Covenants 64:23

Also, interesting, its generally recognized that the LDS increased the amount of what tithing should be. Movements that broke with the LDS like the RLDS (Community of Christ) only require a 10% tithe of a person's "increase" whereas the LDS want a flat 10% of everything before taxes--wards leaders will even confront people before and after the chapel service on Sunday saying they need to discuss their tithing.

City of Los Angeles "helps" homeless by taking homes

UPDATE: The City of LA claims it will return the mini homes. Of course, the city only treats the homeless fairly when FORCED to by courts, even knowing in advance this will happen.

The City of Los Angeles continues its long, cherished custom of treating homeless people with the most contempt possible under the guise of "helping" them to find "shelter" by taking their shelter.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-tiny-houses-seized-20160224-story.html

Pope kissing the hands of David Rockefeller?

There is a very silly claim going around anti-Catholic forums (particularly in Spanish) this week that the Pope kissed the hands of David Rockefeller--"proving" the Pope is in the New World Order and other secret, nefarious organizations. The picture however is taken in 2014 at Yad Vashem--Holocaust memorial in Israel. The man the pope is kissing is an elderly Holocaust survivor named Eliezer (Lolek) Grynfeld.

The video can be seen in full where they announce the man people claim is David Rockefeller.

 The meeting with Eliezer, or as some falsely claim--David Rockefeller is at 16:12. The name is clearly said. The Youtube video is on the official page of Yad Vashem.

The English translation of the event is found here, where you can read for yourself what is said about Eliezer Grynfeld.

Why I abandoned Peshitta Aramaic Primacy long ago

The Peshitta Text is a manuscript of the Bible (sometimes Old Testament, sometimes Old and New Testament, with or without the catholic epistles) that is generally believed to have been written between roughly the 4th and 5th centuries, with the disputed 'catholic' epistles/books included by AD 616. Some believe, however, the Peshitta text to be the original version of the New Testament written by the New Testament writers preserved. For a while I believed this might be true, in part because of the language which matched the language likely spoken in 1st century Israel and the deceitful arguments made by Peshitta Aramaic primacists. Though I generally doubt the Peshitta text is original, and now agree with what scholars have been saying for a while--that the Peshitta is a translation of the Greek text, I still believe what St Jerome said is true--that Matthew, possible the Letter to the Hebrews, were originally in Aramaic, but whether or not the Peshitta text preserves this--I do not know.

Some of the reasons I no longer believe in Peshitta primacy are

1) When the New Testament translates Aramaic words, the Peshitta text strangely seems to also. If the Peshitta were the originally, it would not see to repeat itself when explaining Aramaic, this would seem more likely of a work that was done by a scribe careful, not wanting to leave any thing out, no matter how silly. For instance, whenever the Aramaic word Abba/Ava appears in the Greek Testament, thanks to dukhrana.com:

 ܘܶܐܡܰܪ ܐܰܒ݂ܳܐ ܐܳܒ݂ܝ ܟ݁ܽܠ ܡܶܕ݁ܶܡ ܡܶܫܟ݁ܰܚ ܐܰܢ݈ܬ݁ ܐܰܥܒ݁ܰܪ ܡܶܢܝ ܟ݁ܳܣܳܐ ܗܳܢܳܐ ܐܶܠܳܐ ܠܳܐ ܨܶܒ݂ܝܳܢܝ ܕ݁ܺܝܠܝ ܐܶܠܳܐ ܕ݁ܺܝܠܳܟ݂ --Mark 14:36 in Peshitta

 (Hebrew transliteration of Peshitta)וֵאמַר אַבָא אָבי כֻּל מֵדֵּם מֵשׁכַּח אַנתּ אַעבַּר מֵני כָּסָא הָנָא אֵלָא לָא צֵביָני דִּילי אֵלָא דִּילָכ

 And he said: Father, my Father, thou canst do all things. Let this cup pass from me. Yet not my pleasure, but thine. --Lamsa Translation

  και ελεγεν αββα ο πατηρ παντα δυνατα σοι παρενεγκε το ποτηριον απ εμου τουτο αλλ ου τι εγω θελω αλλα τι συ --Greek Text

He said, “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.” --RSV from Greek Text

It seems strange that the Aramaic would read awkwardly "father, my father" both in Aramaic, when the Greek text reads "Abba o pateer." With Abba/avva being obviously Aramaic, and pateer being the Greek translation of abba.  The Peshitta here looks just too phony. We see similar occurring at Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6.

2) Greek loan words when the Greek text does not even use those words. For instance Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7 in Aramaic uses the Greek word "eucharisteo" whereas the Greek text it self uses "breaking of the bread"

 ܘܐܡܝܢܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܒܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܕܫܠܝܚܐ ܘܡܫܬܘܬܦܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܒܨܠܘܬܐ ܘܒܩܨܝܐ ܕܐܘܟܪܣܛܝܐ

Acts 2:42 - ואמינין הוו ביולפנא דשׁליחא ומשׁתותפין הוו בצלותא ובקציא דאוכרסטיא .

Acts 2:42 - And they persevered in the doctrine of the legates; and were associated together in prayer, and in breaking the eucharist (translation from Aramaic).

Acts 2:42 - ησαν δε προσκαρτερουντες τη διδαχη των αποστολων και τη κοινωνια και τη κλασει του αρτου και ταις προσευχαις


tbc

Jehovah Witness promotion of paranoia

Jehovah Witnesses are a sect of the 19th Century American religious experience, that is a bit like the radical reformation of the 16th Century with several unusual doctrines (there is no eternal hell, the soul dies), among which isolate themselves from outside (birthdays, Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving are all pagan and therefore evil), or are done to make themselves appear uniquely enlightened (ie Jesus died on a single 2x4', its a sin to receive a blood transfusion). Probably, the most well known belief is their obsession with the end of the world, since they have successfully been preaching the End is right around the corner for the last 130 years, occasionally setting a date that failed to happen (eg 1914).

Since the Witnesses are obsessed with the End Times, like much of American Protestant Christianity since the 19th century (just look at the LDS, SDA, and general American evangelicals for the last 30 years point to just about anything in the newspaper being a fulfillment of Bible prophecy) they publish in their magazine pictures that are supposed to be scenarios of Witnesses meeting under candle light, in what appears to be some sort of underground setting. For those unfamiliar with Kingdom Hall worship meetings--they are generally about 90 minutes long, with a few, simple songs made by the organization (often songs telling Witnesses they need to do field work), and a 30 minute speech by an elder, then 1 hour long "bible study" based out of the organization's own publication--"The Watchtower." During the 'bible study' portion they have a reader read the paragraphs, then a facilitator read the questions and pick members of the audience to answer them. 9/10 times the answer is repeating exactly what was just read. But sometimes, the answers are not spelled out right there and members are encouraged to think for themselves--as in the case with a picture. Here is the picture used for the October 15, 2015 "The Watchtower" article called "Give us More Faith."

 



Upon asking the question, there will be several people in the congregation who's hands will jet right up and give detailed answers about how the event is when the evil world will outlaw the Witnesses--forcing them to go underground because they choose to be faithful to Jehovah, while the terrible church of Christendom thrive, but alas, Jehovah's kingdom is not of this system of things, so the Witnesses will preserver in the end and be granted resurrection while others will be destroyed. Generally, the more vivid, paranoid, delusional response will merit greater praise from the questioner. I have seen this several times.  In another one from with in the last year, the people made out how there SEEMED to be letter head, meaning of course that somehow the governing body was still functioning but in secret. The purpose of the pictures are generally to guilt their members into doing more field service, or to scare the more lukewarm members into regularly attending meetings. They also, make a point in how the people are not dressed for Kingdom Hall because its done in haste and in secrecy (Witnesses generally dress very formally whether in "field ministry" or at Kingdom Hall meetings--suit and ties for men with no beards, long dresses for women). Witnesses really hate beards, even in this doomsday scenes the male JWs typically still have no facial hair (although for whatever reason they are ok with mustaches, so some men will have big, ugly, bushy ones).

As a side note, the Witnesses often make it a point to make pictures as multicultural as possible and emphasize they are in their meetings while portraying outside religions as being racist, whereas Witnesses wanting people to believe they are the only ones to overcome this.

Sunday, Sabbath, first of the week

The Scriptures tells us a few times that the early apostolic church gathered for "breaking bread" ie the Mass, on the first day of the week, which refers to Sunday.

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.--Acts 20:7 RSV

On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come. --1 Corinthians 16:2 RSV

Since, this can be problematic for groups with Judaizing, Sabbath-keeping urges like the Seventh Day Adventists, Seventh Day Baptists and other Sabbath keeping Christian sects, some of their apologists insist these verses are actually about the Sabbath, since it has the Greek word sabbaton, which is sabbaths. As seen here:

Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν κλάσαι ἄρτον, ὁ Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς, μέλλων ἐξιέναι τῇ ἐπαύριον, παρέτεινέν τε τὸν λόγον μέχρι μεσονυκτίου. --Acts 20:7 Byzantine Majority text (the non Byzantine manuscript are the same except replace τῶν μαθητῶν with ἡμῶν)

Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων ἕκαστος ὑμῶν παρ' ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω, θησαυρίζων ὅ τι ἂν εὐοδῶται, ἵνα μή, ὅταν ἔλθω, τότε λογίαι γίνωνται. --1Corinthians 16:2 (Byzantine text, other texts vary in spelling had read 'sabbatou')

So the rebuttal boils down to "see this is actually taking place on the Sabbath, it doesn't say 'week.' At first, this rebuttal seemed impressive, until other verses with the same words are inspected that use sabbaton (said savvaton actually). We can look through the Gospel accounts see the phrase "first of the Sabbaths" (μίαν σαββάτων or,πρώτῃ σαββάτου) is translated as "first day of the week":

Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag′dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher.--Matthew 28:1 RSV

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία, θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.--Matthew 28:1 RSV

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo′me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.  And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.--Mark 16:1-2 RSV

Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν.  Καὶ λίαν πρωῒ τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου. --Mark 16:1-2 Byzantine Text 

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Mag′dalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons--Mark 16:9

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ' ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. --Mark 16:9 (Byzantine Text)  

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared.--Luke 24:1 

Τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, ὄρθρου βαθέος, ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα, φέρουσαι ἃ ἡτοίμασαν ἀρώματα, καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς. --Luke 24:1 Byzantine Text (other texts omit ἦλθον and καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς)

Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag′dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.--John 20:1 RSV

Τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ ἔρχεται πρωΐ, σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης, εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, καὶ βλέπει τὸν λίθον ἠρμένον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου.--John 20:1 (all major texts)

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”--John 20:19

Οὔσης οὖν ὀψίας, τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, καὶ τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὅπου ἦσαν οἱ μαθηταὶ συνηγμένοι, διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. --John 20:19 (Byzantine Majority, over texts omit "τῶν" (the) before σαββάτων, and συνηγμένοι (assembled).

Since Christ rose on a Sunday and rested in the tomb on the Sabbath, these women were not coming on the Sabbath day since Christ has risen by this time.

We read in Luke's account that the Pharisees fasted twice a "week":

I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’--Luke 18:12

The Greek reads in the place of "week"--sabbatou.

 Νηστεύω δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου, ἀποδεκατῶ πάντα ὅσα κτῶμαι. --Luke 18:12

Pharisees fasted "twice" on a Sabbath? or twice a week? The Jewish custom was to fast on Monday and Thursday--not two times on the same day.

From my search it appears that the Greek word for "week" as used in the LXX is not used in the NT. The LXX uses the word ἑβδομάδας for a period of seven, as in Daniel 10:2

ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐγὼ Δανιηλ ἤμην πενθῶν τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας ἡμερῶν--Daniel 10:2 LXX

In those days I, Daniel, was in mourning for three weeks of days.--Daniel 10:2 NET

Hebrew of Daniel 10:2-- בַּיָּמִים, הָהֵם--אֲנִי דָנִיֵּאל הָיִיתִי מִתְאַבֵּל, שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׁבֻעִים יָמִים

The Daniel Text in both Hebrew and Greek use a words proper to those languages for a week---"seven days."

 Every time any translation of the NT uses the word "week" the word is always some form of "sabbaton."

The New Testament uses the same term for Sunday as found in Jewish literature of the first millennium, for instance in the Babylonian Talmud Tannit 29b its read:

חל להיות באחד בשבת מותר לכבס כל השבת כולה
בשני בשלישי ברביעי ובחמישי לפניו אסור לאחריו מותר חל להיות בערב שבת מותר לכבס בחמישי מפני כבוד השבת 

תלמוד בבלי, מסכת תענית פרק ד כט,ב גמרא

Should it fall on Sunday (באחד בשבת b'echad b'shavat-- in one [of] shavat/sabbath) it is permissible to wash clothes the whole of the week ( השבת hashshavat--the Sabbath/week), [but should it fall] on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday, before it it is not permissible, but after it, it is permissible;[should it fall] on Friday it is permissible to wash clothes on Thursday in honour of the Sabbath--Mas. Ta'anit 29b (page 94), Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo'ed

The sentence חל להיות באחד בשבת מותר לכבס כל השבת כולה is translated as "Should it fall on Sunday it is permissible to wash clothes the whole of the week." באחד is "b'echad" that is "In/on One" and בשבת is "on Sabbath/week," here it means "week" and is translated as week. Then at the end the word shavat is used again, "kal hashshavat " meaning either "whole Sabbath" or "whole week" and obviously Jews are not to wash clothes on the Sabbath day. Translators of the Talmud translate the phrase "one of/in Sabbath" as "Sunday" just as the New Testament has always been understood. So,

μίαν σαββάτων in the Greek New Testament is the equal of the Hebrew Talmudic phrase באחד בשבת . Where both texts read "one of the Sabbath(s)" to refer to Sunday, which is modern Hebrew is Yom Rishon.

On this matter, John Lightfoot, a commentator and scholar on Judaism said:

εἰς μίαν σαββάτων " Towards the first day of the week."] The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; באחד בשבת "One day" (or the first day) "of the Sabbath:"  תרי בשבא "two" (or the second day) "of the Sabbath:"--"Two witnesses come and say, בחד בשבא The first of the Sabbath, this man stole, &c ובתרי בשבא and, on the second day of the Sabbath, judgment passed on him."--"The whole works of Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D., Volume XI, Exercitations upon the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter XVIII:1, page 357)