Everything old is new again…

Then: Medieval Bible texts use pictogram for “sun” in Book of Revelation

Now: Bible Emoji translates scripture into pictures for Millennials


Chris Queen with PJ Media: How Can We Observe the Sabbath in Our Modern World?

The variety of comments are as interesting as the content of the article (as is common with the very intelligent clientele that PJ Media’s extreme good journalism draws).  You see the expected responses “The Sabbath is for Jews and not Christians,” “The Old Testament days and observations are rendered obsolete by the New Testament,” “a Sunday sabbath is Roman tradition disconnected from the Jewish roots of Christianity,” etc.

They all miss a larger point.  If Hashem is his Word, and Yeshua the Word made flesh, then these commandments, which are the Word, reflect the very nature of God and Yeshua.  Shabbat Torah mitzvot, therefore, show how vitally important and deadly earnest it is for Hashem, for Yeshua, to establish this “temple in time” and keep it sanctified and not sullied with worldly concerns. “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, so the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” but by extension, this means that Shabbat was made for the Son of man Yeshua.  It is Yeshua’s Sabbath, he wanted it, and it is very important to him–arguably even integral to his nature.

So people who are content to say the Sabbath is “passed” or “gone” or “obsolete” miss the point…but so do people fixated on the exactitude and minutiae of timing and observance.  If we are going to take a Yeshua-centric approach to Torah and Shabbat, we would have to ponder how he wants the Shabbat celebrated. What is important to him as far as how different kinds of people conduct themselves in this temporal sanctuary of his? Would Yeshua want to celebrate the sabbath with you and your congregation?

Early 20th Century Proto-blogger G.K. Chesterton on why the triunity of the Godhead is important to, well, everybody.

The barren dogma is only the logical way of stating the beautiful sentiment. For if there be a being without beginning, existing before all things, was He loving when there was nothing to be loved? If through that unthinkable eternity He is lonely, what is the meaning of saying He is love? The only justification of such a mystery is the mystical conception that in His own nature there was something analogous to self-expression; something of what begets and beholds what it has begotten. Without some such idea, it is really illogical to complicate the ultimate essence of deity with an idea like love.

He takes a swipe at Judaism with his “the grey deity of the Pharisees and the Sadducees” comment.  Of course this is an unfair criticism.  God in Judaism is loving, compassionate and very much personally, emotionally invested in his people.  There is just little in Judaism on how to sensibly reconcile these attributes of God to the ineffable and transcendent nature of Hashem, or in other words, how God is going to “dwell among his people” in some real, tangible manner.  The Yeshua gospel, featuring the Oneness of Father and Son, is the most elegant answer to this conundrum.