Tag Archives: Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost

Judges 4:1-7 – The judge Deborah [Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost]

January 22, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, after Ehud died. So the Lord sold them into the hand of King Jabin of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor; the commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-ha-goiim. Then the Israelites cried out to the Lord for help; for he had nine hundred chariots of iron, and had oppressed the Israelites cruelly twenty years.

At that time Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the Israelites came up to her for judgment. She sent and summoned Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali, and said to him, “The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you, ‘Go, take position at Mount Tabor, bringing ten thousand from the tribe of Naphtali and the tribe of Zebulun. I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the Wadi Kishon with his chariots and his troops; and I will give him into your hand.’”

———————————————————————————————————-

This is the Old Testament selection from the Episcopal Lectionary for Year A, Proper 28, the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost. It will next be read aloud in church on Sunday, November 19, 2017. It is important because it tells of God’s response to cries to help, through those who never lost their connection to God.

To make this shorter, I refer readers here to an analysis that I published on this “blog” in November 2014, about this same reading. I entitled that article “The Truth of the Prophetess Deborah.” If one browses the selected reading above, one will find that there are no less than nineteen names of people and places plus words identifying things, all which have hidden meaning that needs to be understood for this “simple” story to unfold fully. I explained this reading based on understanding those name-word meanings in that article; so I will not repeat that interpretation.

I will state in brief review that my thoughts of three years ago focused on Deborah being a High Priestess, more than on her being a “wife.” While that is certainly an identification based on the Hebrew text, there is question as to the meaning of Lappidoth. Is it naming a husband or a personification of self-identity? If the latter, then “ishshah” may take on a secondary meaning as the primary intent, intended to state that Deborah was nobody’s “wife,” but a female of Lappidoth. For this interpretation, however, I will focus more on the traditional translation of Deborah being a “wife,” while looking at a couple of “side items.”

One is a view that I touched on a short while back, when I mentioned the Prophetess Deborah was an ancient example of God working through females. Simply by her called a “prophetess” all priestly claims for male superiority (Roman Catholics primo uno) are false. My point was that female servants of God, when filled with the Holy Spirit and reborn as Christ Jesus, are not “mothers.” Likewise, males are not “fathers,” in the sense that the word implies progeneration.

All who speak the word of the LORD do not speak as the personal bringer of life to people. The words they speak come from the one they become identified with, through the title of “Father.” A female priest is not meant to nurse all of a congregation’s boo boos away, or give group hugs and lead pep rallies. A female priest calls upon the name of Jesus Christ, the same as does a male priest. Therefore, a female priest is the Father, in the same way as a male priest is. This is a simple matter of Spirituality, where the sex of the human cannot change the masculinity of God.

The example of Deborah says, foremost, that she was a “wife,” based on “ishshah” used as an identifier. The Hebrew text says, “’iš·šāh nə·ḇî·’āh” (rooted in “ishshah nebiah”), followed by some indication of separation (written or implied), then “’ê·šeṯ lap·pî·ḏō·wṯ” (rooted in “ishshah Lappidoth”). The word “ishshah” means “wife,” so the actual text says Deborah was “a wife prophetess.” Following that identification, we are told she was “the wife of Lappidoth.” This repeating of “wife” says that Deborah was married to a man who supported her. Together they were husband and wife.

The word “husband” comes from Old Norse, meaning “master of the house,” while implying “a man who has land and stock.” It also strongly implies a man who has a spouse. While these modern times are almost totally focused on the sexuality of a couple, so that “marriage” is only for two single people to have all the sex they want, without any plans for children, the true purpose for marriage is often overlooked.

Rather than marriage being between two lovers, to have and to hold till death does them part (a highly unlikely scenario in the modern world of divorce and multiple marriages), marriage means to have children. It is the marriage of one’s DNA to another’s that “can never be torn asunder.” A child remains “married” to its parents, regardless of how the parental sexual appetites wane and begin to look elsewhere.

While overlooked today, it was clearly understood in ancient times; such that a “husband” was more able to tend his land and stock with the assistance of male children. The “wife” was able to have the female children help her as “mistress of the house.”

As a “wife,” it is then stated indirectly that Deborah was a “mother.” To understand this, I recommend reading Genesis and the history of Abram and Sarai, who were married – as a man and a woman who had sexual relations together, exclusively – but Abram kept introducing Sarai (to important men) as his “sister.” This was probably stated as, “Sarai is the daughter of my father,” which was the truth of a woman who had been “given away” in marriage. However, Abram could not truthfully say, “Sarai is my wife,” because that would cause the important men to inquire, “Oh, nice! Where are the kids?”

When one grasps that Deborah was a “wife” first, which meant she was (in essence) “Mother Deborah,” her sex organs that delivered and nursed babies had absolutely nothing to do with her identification as a “prophetess.” The Hebrew word “nebiah” says, “prophetess,” as the feminine form of “nabi,” which says “prophet.” This says that Deborah was a “wife” who “prophesied.”

In Isaiah 8, the Lord spoke to the “prophet” Isaiah, and in that process we read (Isiah 8:3a): “So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son.” This “prophetess” is believed to be the “wife” of Isaiah, the “prophet.” This relationship of a husband prophet to a wife prophetess is then more than a wife taking on the female title of the male (like “father-mother”), or the text would read, “So I approached the wife, and she conceived.” It says Isaiah the prophet was married to a woman who not only shared his household and bed, but a woman of like mind, who was also able to be in touch with God.

This means the prophet Isaiah was married to his female compliment; and that example can then be applied to the relationship between Deborah and Lappidoth. It says a “prophet” or “prophetess” cannot be joined with someone who acts like Darren Stephens, while Samantha was twitching her nose – always trying to get her to stop doing what came naturally. A husband prophet becomes supportive of a wife prophetess, so each knows when the word of God is being spoken by one or both. The words “prophet” and “prophetess” become statements of equality, although one is male and one is female.

According to one web page I found, in a search of “ancient school of prophets,” Samuel initiated that formal institution. It can be presumed that this school focused on presenting Kabbalistic studies to first-born male students who had been given to the priesthood by their parents. Thus, being an “educated” prophet can be seen as a parallel in modern times (since the advent of Christianity) to monasteries, seminaries, and schools of divinity and theology. The difference between then and now is a school of prophecy was designed to educate those who would advise kings, whereas Christian schools are designed to educate the heads of churches and parishes.

The Roman Catholic Church’s program of only allowing males to be leaders of churches, where those males were called “priests,” threw dirt and mud on the concept of a female “priestess.” That title became associated with the pagan religions. like that Rome had. Forget the Greek mythology of the Oracle of Delphi, where a “priestess” spoke only the truth of Apollo (the Sun god), while in a trance of ecstatic prophecy, if the truth is spoken by a female, then it is a lie. Where a “prophet” and a “prophetess” have equal status, a “priest” and a “priestess” do not.

This is why female priests become such a difficult entity, where giving one a proper title is not as easy as tossing out the female form of the male title. That is where “Mother” comes from, even though people forget that “Mother” is the title of the head nun in a convent. Since a female “priest” is an educated head of a Christian church, the use of “prophetess” would imply almost the same as “priestess” (“oooh! Pagan!”), with neither seeming appropriate.

Still, “Mother” indicates “the Mistress of the Church,” while “Father” means, “I speak for God.”

What most Christians fail to grasp is the differences between human beings – man (little-a adam, identified as “zā·ḵār” – “male”) and woman (identified as “neqebah” – female) – versus holy man (capital-A Adam, made by the breath of God and identified as “the man whom Yahweh had formed” – “hā·’ā·ḏām” – “the man”) and holy woman (identified as “hā·’ā·ḏām lə·’iš·šāh” – “the wife of the man”). Because the human beings that Christians call “Adam and Eve” were created on the Sabbath day – the Holy Day – they are the first “prophet” and “prophetess” (because they spoke with God) AND they are the first “priest” and “priestess” (because they taught sacred rites). They are a complimentary pair, with both sent to the earth as the seeds of religion, teaching animal man and animal woman the differences between good and evil.

When we read of Adam’s son making altars, and Abram making altars, and Abraham going out with Isaac to make an altar and do a sacrifice, the purpose of those Patriarchs was to be “holy priests,” and only “holy priests” build altars and make sacrifices to the LORD. A father teaches his sons, just like the Father teaches His sons (to be the Son). What is not written, but can be assumed, is “holy wives” were also “holy priestesses,” who taught their daughters, just like the Fathers teaches His daughters (to be the Son).

While the sons of fathers turned out frequently to not be as holy as the father (Cain being the first example, but the sons of Eli, Samuel, and David are others – et al), one can see that God sending holy man and holy woman to the earth (a realm of evil), there were “priests” and “priestesses” who did a Darth Vader, and turned to the dark side. The lesson in that is a title is a way of self-aggrandizement, so the ones more likely to truly be holy priests and holy priestesses are those who do not stand before others in pretentious form, so the focus is on them and not the Father.

That is why I have a problem with a female graduate of a Christian seminary being referred to as “Mother.” If a “priest” is a male leader of a congregation, then “priestess” should be the natural feminine gender compliment title. However, since “priestess” seems muddied by its association to pagan religions, then it might be worthwhile to look at the Jewish title of “rabbi,” which is the same for both sexes. That translates as “Teacher.” Both are called the same, with neither insinuating harder or softer.

The “prophetess” that was Deborah means she, like a male “prophet,” spoke to God and then passed that wisdom on to those in need. She taught what the LORD told her. Ehud did as well, I presume. That is what holy men and holy women do. It is called being filled with the Holy Spirit, where one prophesies via speaking in tongues – the Word of the LORD.

Seminaries and schools of prophecy cannot teach that; so they have no title for those who do that. Graduates are sent to seek employment by religious institutions, which then ordains priests (male and female) and assigns them to buildings with congregations. The problem with “Teacher” (for ordained Christians) is then the onus put on that title by ordained priests who really do not like a ministry shepherding congregations. Some quit doing that mundane work and return to a school, in order to teach flocks of seminarians. Fortunately, those add Professor to their title, rather than “Teacher.”

Another thing I wish to point out from this reading selection is the first verse, which states, “The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, after Ehud died.” Ehud was a judge from the Tribe of Benjamin, which was the area of land settled between Jericho, Jerusalem, and Gabaon (Gibeon).

Deborah was also a judge, like Ehud had been. This is a statement of equality, which has nothing to do with the sex of a judge and everything to do with one’s connection to the LORD. This means a “judge” is not some official title of government, as much as it identifies someone filled with the Holy Spirit, as one who is constantly in touch with God. This ultimately makes God the true Judge. Therefore, Ehud and Deborah were vehicles of God’s judgment.

That judgment was essential because the Israelite people had turned away from their LORD and “did what was evil in [His] sight.” This would be a repeating theme of the Book of Judges. As it was then, so it is now, and forever.

Human beings who claim devotion to the LORD but then run and play like their heathen neighbors are no longer “children of the LORD.” They are no longer His chosen people. To be common is to be like 99.9% (plus) of humanity is, which is unholy (“evil”) and given over to following whomever or whatever human individuals can choose to follow. In this case it was some high ruler in Canaan, but that “King” can be reflective of any President, Pope, or movie star – anyone who puts people on their knees worshipping someone other than the One God, YaHWeH.

Finally, I will address the location of Deborah, which is said to be, “between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim.” Ephraim was the area of Israel that bordered Benjamin, to the north.

Ephraim was the tribe of Joshua; and Joshua was also one who judged Israel for God. Other than what I have written previously about the implications coming from the name meanings that add value in this story, this verse can be a clue as to Deborah’s heritage. If it is an indication that Deborah (and/or Lappidoth) were descended from a line of holy men and women from the house of Joshua, this would help explain how she became a prophetess. This would mean Deborah was raised with priestly values taught to her, to which she adhered fervently and that devotion led to her abilities as a “prophetess.”

In this scenario, Deborah’s “husband” would be God. Her marriage to the LORD was then what filled her with the Holy Spirit and allowed her to prophesy. In the grand scheme of the books of the Holy Bible, the thread from Genesis to The Revelation is holy lineage, as the Tree of Life or the Vine of Christ, which includes many names of the dead branches that were gathered up and thrown into the fire.

The lesson of that lineage is the work involved in being filled with God’s Holy Spirit. Just as Deborah probably never knew Joshua (Ehud judged Israel for 80 years after Joshua died), people today never knew any of the holy figures of the Scriptures. We have to study the word of God, through His prophets and prophetesses and adhere to that teaching. With hard work and prayer, God will see that devotion as worthy of allowing us to prophesy as God’s judges.

Lord knows we need that.

1 Thessalonians, Language, Teaching

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 – Stay awake and sober for when the day of the Lord will come [Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost]

January 22, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. So then let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober; for those who sleep sleep at night, and those who are drunk get drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, as indeed you are doing.

——————————————————————————————————–

This is the Epistle selection from the Episcopal Lectionary for Year A, Proper 28, the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost. This will next be read aloud in church on Sunday, November 19, 2017. It is important as it echoes the theme of being prepared for everlasting life, as was seen in the parables of the Ten Bridesmaids and the Rich Fool.

The selected reading from the fifth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Christians of Thessaly begins with the capitalized Greek word “Peri,” followed by the conjunction “de.” This has been translated as, “Now concerning,” which is a reversal of the written words’ order, rather than literally translating, “Concerning now.” Certainly, this translation reflects translation via standard syntax; but standard syntax misses the subtle intent of capitalization, which places a need to focus some importance onto the word “Peri.”

The word “peri” means, “about, concerning,” and “around,” which “denotes place, cause or subject.” Its implied usage infers, “consideration where ‘all the bases are covered.’” As such, the important focus by the capitalization of this states, “Circumstances now” or “Conditions on top of.”

Because 1 Thessalonians 4:18 (reviewed in the Proper 27 lesson) ended chapter four with a plea to continue teaching the value of being in possession of the Holy Spirit, prior to death, chapter five is then referencing that plea and that message. This beginning is then stating these are the “Conditions on top of” that prior statement. This next chapter is then adding focus on the “Circumstances now,” which were surrounding Apostles who were filled with the Holy Spirit. While that is also reflected in stating, “Now concerning,” there is something lacking in such an, “Oh, by the way” introduction.

This introduction then refers to “the times and the seasons,” which sounds reminiscent of the song found in Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, made popular by The Birds, with their song “Turn, Turn, Turn” (1965).

The two key words her are “chronōn” and “kairōn” (rooted in “chronos” and “kairos”), which can also state, “durations” and “opportunities.” This means the “Circumstances” that are “next” for those in their positions as Apostles is to look at how long (“times”) they have to serve the LORD, with their new purpose being to seek new believers to bring to Christ (the “opportunities”). Thus, this chapter places focus on that “time” and “purpose’ each Apostle has, relative to preaching the Gospel, and does not reflect an estimation of when one’s “time” is up.

Because Paul then addressed the whole body of Christians in Thessaly as “brothers,” then “the times and the purposes” or “the durations and the opportunities” were those only held by bodies holding the risen Lord (Christ Jesus) within (meaning male and female Thessalonians were “brothers in Christ,” as Jesus reborn). That holy presence, coming with the Christ Mind, means there was “no need to have written” a checklist of “Apostle To-dos” or a schedule for what “times” one should go to church and what “seasons” does a Church recognize, denoted by when it is appropriate to wear robes of green, white, red, purple, black, pink (rose), gold and blue.

Above all, Paul (via the Holy Spirit) was not indicating the Christian Thessalonians thought someone should tell them when they would die and write that in a letter. The deeper meaning is the written Mosaic Laws are no longer external to them, for them to memorize and forcibly follow. The presence of God in their hearts has written His acceptable ways in their hearts.

The translation, “For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night,” is shown to be three segments in the Greek text. The dividing points come after a statement that confirms the presence of the LORD within, such that is states, “Yourselves fully know that day of the LORD.” The love of God and His marriage to them, in their hearts, has become “that day of the Lord,” meaning there is no need to follow “cookbook” rules that will make “that day” be in the future. Thus, following a comma (written or implied) is the statement “as a thief in night.” This becomes read separately, as the day of the LORD being when they had their darkness of night was stolen from them.

The final segment of this verse concludes, “in this way comes.” That “manner” is then the “stealth” in which God transforms one from a mortal born of death (“the night”), to a soul with the promise of eternity that become “known” on “that day of the LORD.”

Of course, the double entendre (dual meaning) speaks of “night” as the “time” of death, which is not foretold “in writing.” The “day of the LORD” becomes the “light” of awareness when the soul meets face-to-face with God, who takes the soul “like a thief.’ The factor of “night” becomes representative of the “time” of death.

In verse 3, where the translation is “When they say, “There is peace and security,” the second segment (in quotation marks) is “Eirēnē kai asphaleia,” where the capitalization leads to those referenced (as “they”) saying, “Peace and security.”The presence of capitalization is important to recognize.

It is also worthwhile to know that “eirēnē” was used as an “invocation of peace [as] a common Jewish farewell, in the Hebraistic sense of the health (welfare) of an individual.” Capitalizing this word then infers someone pronouncing “I am healthy and well.” This becomes similar to the common thoughts of mortals, as stating, “I am so good that God has rewarded me physically, with good health.” The word “asphaleia” then adds to that proclamation of physical health the “reliability, firmness, and safety,” which (again) are thought to be from the good graces of YaHWeH.

For Paul to write that to Christians in Thessaly, who undoubtedly were a mix of former Jews and former Gentiles, such words were understood to be those commonly expressed. They were catchphrases, rather than deep beliefs. People of professed faith, who think they have been blessed by God (due to the comfort of their status and position) can then pretend to be a god with a catchy farewell. This gives the impression: “As I have peace and security, I give you a pinch of that peace and security to keep as your own.”

The same can be said as happening to this day, especially when an Episcopal service comes to the point of “The Peace.” The priest motions everyone to rise, and says, “May the peace of the Lord be with you,” to which the congregations replies, “And also with you.” I expect we do it today because they did it yesterday.

Now, that is all well and fine, IF everyone knows what that means and means what that says.

Myself, not being a “cradle to grave” Episcopalian, I was not confirmed in the Episcopal Church until the ripe old age of fifty-something. After the ceremonial proceedings, the Bishop spoke with me privately, while the others were leaving the nave. He shook my hand and said, “May the peace of the Lord be with you.”

When I heard that, I was thinking, “Wow. That was so nice of the Bishop to say that … to wish me well.” So, I replied, “Thank you.”

As he was walking up the aisle to leave it struck me, “Idiot, that was an Episcopal catchphrase.” As soon as I realized my mistake, I hollered out to the Bishop, “And also with you!”

He didn’t look back; but he kinda waved his left hand to the side, letting me know he heard. Maybe he didn’t want me to see him trying not to laugh?

That becomes symbolic of what Paul was writing; as people think saying the right things is all they have to do to get to Heaven. However, Paul then wrote, “Then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!” This says that talking a good game is no replacement for sacrificing your Big Brain for the love of God and the Mind of Christ.

When that self-sacrifice is done, then” you do not need to have anything written to you” to memorize as a farewell. A catchphrase is an automatic statement that comes without out deep thought and meaning. “Peace and security” implies “I already have this, which only works when that is the truth.

To follow that up with, “sudden destruction will come” means “ruin, doom, destruction, and death” has just been wished upon oneself, simply from thinking one is prepared to enjoy life because God loves him or her, and not doing the will of the LORD. That meaning of “destruction” comes from the Greek word “olethros,” which also “emphasizes the consequent loss that goes with the complete “undoing.”’ One is thus undoing all of their pleasant thoughts of health and safety by boasting about you being well-to-do. All the counting of one’s chickens before they have hatched will have been “undone” by having the gall to think God loves you so much that He is your slave.

Now, in the verse where it says, “as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman,” this too is spoken with dual meaning intended. First is the obvious, which is “labor pains” come suddenly, when a “pregnant woman” is due to give birth to a baby. Their onset becomes a ‘drop everything’ mentality, with going into rush mode an immediate response. For a lot of married couples who are pregnant, the parents-to-be practice for that time when action needs to be quick. When it is time to react swiftly, looking up something in a book or calling someone to ask what to do is not the best way to get moving.

Second, which is a deeper meaning, relates to my having said prior that all mortal human beings are called to be the brides of God. God wants to impregnate both males and females with His Holy Spirit; but God is not going to rape anyone that refuses to get engaged and become married to Him (in Spirit). Therefore, the metaphor means the “destruction” of death will come suddenly, because mortal human beings (males and females) became “pregnant” from their own rejections of God and Christ.

There is a vulgar saying that involves a word beginning with “F” and involves “yourself.” Consider that the secret second meaning here.

Still, the Greek words only imply a “pregnant woman,” which is the translation provided by the New American Standard Bible (NASB). The actual Greek text says, “ōdin tē en gastri echousē.” The closest that comes to “labor pains upon a pregnant woman” is as “the pain of childbirth to her [feminine “the”] in the belly holding.” The actual birth of a baby or child is implied, but not said.

A viable alternate translation can be, “the acute pain to her in the stomach having.” This then becomes a reference to a woman that has not become pregnant, as the sudden announcement from “her belly” that mensuration is about to begin sloughing and unused egg. As metaphor, males can know this “sudden pain in the gut” after eating some bad food.

The point is to not get caught up in looking for ways that, “This cannot be a worry for me,” as Paul was not trying to tell of pregnant women suddenly dying. The comparison is to how the state of “death comes so quickly” that “there can be no escape.”

In verse 4, Paul again refers to the recipients of his letter as “brothers.” The translation as “beloved” recognizes a familial relationship, in the same way that John wrote that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene, Martha, John, and Lazarus. The actual identification as “brothers” says Jesus had been reborn in each and all. The new persona became their escape from the sudden throes of death.

Paul then stated Apostles (males and females) “were not in darkness.” That means they had been elevated from the level of mortal sinner (where darkness always exists) to righteous Saint, where the light of Christ was surrounding them. This can be seen as the halos depicted above a Saint’s head in art. This light was brought upon them by God’s Holy Spirit, so that God had snatched away (good translation of “katalabē”), “like a thief,” their souls from Satan.

The presence of this light that removes all possibility of darkness from the Christians of Thessaly is said above to be due to them being “children of light and children of the day.” The actual Greek states, “huioi phōtos” [comma] and “huioi hēmeras.” The word “huioi” is repeated, lending it an importance of identification. Those repeated word are rooted in the singular word “huios,” which properly means “sons.” The Biblical implication of “huios” as “sons” means it can state (as understood use), “Anyone sharing the same nature as their Father.” (Helps Word Studies for “hyiós“) Certainly, “their Father” has to be understood as God, the LORD.

According to the Helps Word Studies explanation of the Biblical meaning, this word is expanded further by this definition: “For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the eternal Son).” Therefore, while it can be assumed the Christians of Thessaly included men and women, husbands and wives, this use of “sons” clearly identifies them all as the “sons of light” and the “sons of day,” as those embodying the Mind of Christ, Jesus the Son.

By Paul stating “we are” (“esmen”), he was writing as one of those “sons of light,” “sons of day,” so he knew the same as the Christians of Thessaly, because they all were filled with the Mind of Christ as the same Son. Still, “we are” is actually led by the capitalized “Ouk,” meaning “Not.”

The importance of that negative says the voice in Paul’s mind spoke loudly, “Not are we of night nor of darkness.” Paul knew all the writers and addressees had escaped death and the dark night of the soul after death. They had been saved by each being a reborn Jesus, who said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12) “Follows” means be the next Jesus.

The translation of verse 6, “So then let us not fall asleep as others do,” can seem like Paul was giving a pep talk, urging them not to drift off and die, when they have “light” and “day” on their sides. In reality, the Greek text literally states, “So then not we should sleep like the rest.” The “conditional” form of “katheudó” implies that none will reach death and have a soul lost in darkness because they are “sons of light” and “sons of day.” This conditional form reminds us of verse 1, which said this chapter would address “Conditions on top of” (“Peri”) being tasked to spread the Gospel of Christ. One condition is Apostles should not sleep like the rest.

Paul then stated the additional responsibilities Apostles have, which is stated where he wrote, “but let us keep awake and be sober.” The word translated as “awake” is “grégoreó,” which is the conditional form of the root word “grēgorōmen.” The proper translation states, “but we should be vigilant.” This is then followed by the word translated as “sober,” which has “néphó” as its root, from the conditional form written– “nēphōmen.” The completion of the statement is then “and we should be free of illusions,” where “not being delusional” is a viable substitute for “sober.” Again, Paul spoke in the conditional form, which maintains the theme set in the introduction of “Conditions on top of” preaching the word of God.

The translation that says, “for those who sleep sleep at night, and those who are drunk get drunk at night” is actually shown in the Greek text for verse 7 as having four segments, with a semi-colon splitting this verse in the middle. Those language ‘road signs’ say pause and reflect on each segment before proceeding to the next. The four segments literally translate as, “those indeed sleeping,” “by night sleep,” [semi-colon] “and those becoming drunk,” “by night get drunk.” Each segment has its own separate idea that needs to be grasped, before one can run and toss everything together in one quick breath of reading.

To begin with, “those indeed sleeping” recognizes the need for an Apostle to remain alert and free of illusions because (“gar” = “indeed,” => “cause”) the rest of humanity is “sleeping,” as mortals born of death. Only those who are alert and awake can rouse those asleep from their slumbering lives. The separate segment that says “by night sleep,” is a focus being placed on the absence of light that night brings. That, in turn, maintains how ‘dead’ humans of normal life sleepwalk towards a dark end. Following a longer pause for reflection on those statements (the intent of a semi-colon), the next segment then continues (“and”) by placing focus on this life of darkness assisting a sleepwalker because mortals born of death have “become drunk.”

This state of “intoxication” is not caused by drinking alcoholic beverages (as if drinking was the only sin of darkness, only done after nightfall). Instead, it projects all the artificial “highs” and addictive “lows” that one gets from the excesses of the material plane. Excessive drinking can be representative of anything the world has to offer that places the user in an altered state of being, incapable of “seeing the light.” This is then supported in the final segment, “which states “by night get drunk.”

Because “drunk” represents the illusions of life (they used to say drunks saw hallucinations of pink elephants), “sober” is the opposite, where one is “free of illusions.” Paul then encouraged the Thessalonians (in the conditional) to remain “sober,” as those who are led by the light “of day.” That ability to remain focused on helping those who are still in darkness, is then stated as if an Apostle should dress like a ‘Christian soldier’, with a breastplate and helmet.

Halloween – Almost normal
All other days of the year – delusional

That ‘armor’ of protection is then a reference back to the Holy Spirit being the truth of “Peace and safety.” Because a “breastplate” covers the heart area, it becomes the armor of one’s “faith and love” of God. The “helmet,” as the crown of one’s “hope of salvation,” is then the “security” an Apostle receives from the Mind of Christ (with a helmet covering one’s Big Brain of ego). As visual as the verbiage seems, this armor is invisible and comfortably worn by all Saints.

The translation of verse 9 above (NASB), “For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,” is again set without the pauses Paul indicated. There are four segments here, which literally say, “because not has destined us God to wrath,” followed by “but for obtaining salvation,” and then “through the Lord of us.” The final segment states “Jesus Christ,” which is the entity that true Christians become. “Jesus Christ” becomes the author of our “salvation,” when God changes one’s assignment from mortal born of death to a soul allowed everlasting life in light.

When the translation sums this identity of “Jesus Christ” as, “who died for us,” millions of Christians think: Because Jesus died and went to Heaven, anyone who believes that will also go to Heaven. This is wrong, because that it an over-simplification of that which was written. The literal Greek says of “Jesus Christ” that he is “the [One] having died for us.”

The word translated as “for” is that word “peri” again, so “Jesus Christ having died” was conditional “(condition on top of”). Further, the singular number of the word “the” (implying “One,” as “the [One]”) is then followed by the plural pronoun “us.” The plural number says “Christ Jesus died so there could be many Jesus Christs.” As One (the singular), Jesus was limited to only being that guy from Nazareth, born in Bethlehem. However, by him “having died,” then “Jesus,” as the “Christ” “could be us.”

Verse 10 then continues in the conditional (not shown in the NASB translation) saying, “that [a reference back to the death of Jesus leading to Christ in us] whether we might watch or we might sleep.” This is saying that by having Christ be one with an Apostle (the same in all Apostles), then the human being that becomes the risen Lord has nothing to worry about in life (“we might be alert and watchful”) or our body’s eventual death (“we might fall into the sleep of death”). We do not have to worry because (the next segment says), “together with him we might live.” The conditional statements then speak of being filled with God’s Holy Spirit, bringing about that ‘living together’ arrangement.

Verse 11 then ends this selected reading with the Greek text showing three segments. The first says, “Therefore encourage each other.” This is what Paul’s letter is doing. It is a statement that Apostles and Saints “console, send for, invite, beg, admonish, and comfort” one another (from “parakaleó”). This is as opposed to Christians glad-handing for five minutes during “the Peace,” and then silently slinking off, never to call upon a fellow Christian otherwise (unless there is money to be made).

The next segment says, “and build up one another,” which says to add strength to the ones who may be older, or sicker, or (in those ancient times) put in jail for being Christian. To “build up one another” is like “encouraging one another,” as it means a compliment here and a handshake there, with going out of one’s way to recognize the works of faith in one other than oneself. It means sharing, because you want others to share with you. This recommends a fulfillment of the command, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Finally, Paul ended with the assurance, “just as you are doing.” The Greek word “poieite” (“you are doing”) is the present infinitive of “poieó.” That is a verb stating “action.” It means “manufacturing, making, constructing, acting and causing.” It is an encouragement to “keep up the good works.” That says Paul knew their “works” and wanted them to know he knew.

This act of kindness, as a written ‘pat on the back’, is what being Christian is all about. If you cannot compliment another Christian for their good deeds, then perhaps some are actually standing in a tunnel of darkness, looking at the light at its end. Depending on how big and bright that light appears, some might still be afraid to step out into that light. Once one does, one will stand with other Saints and Apostles, turning back to the tunnel, so all can be reaching out to someone else who was also lost and afraid.

Come into the light, brother and sister.

Language, Matthew, Teaching

Matthew 25:14-30 – What to do with spiritual wealth made avilable? [Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost]

January 22, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

Jesus said, “It is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, ‘Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master replied, ‘You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

——————————————————————————————————-

The is the Gospel reading selection from the Episcopal Lectionary for Year A, Proper 28, the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost. It will next be read aloud by a priest in church on Sunday, November 15, 2017. It is important because it addresses being given the talents of the Holy Spirit and one’s use of those in God’s service, as told in the Parable of the Talents (or Minas).

In reference to this reading, it is one that I feel is most important to grasp. I have posted on WordPress about the meaning of the parable of the talents twice before. Once on two previous blogs I had.

They both address my feelings on this allegory told by Jesus; and the posting on Bus Stop Sermons addresses this Gospel reading being joined with the other readings on that Sunday – the prophetess Deborah and Paul’s encouragement for vigilance. That was in October 2014, when Proper 28 fell during “stewardship month,” so few sermons were preached on any of the readings, although “talents” was a lead-in to pointing out how much savings the congregation was sitting on, not giving all they could to the church.

It must be clearly understood that this reading has absolutely nothing to do with money, just as Jesus was not trying to preach to Jews how to build silos to store grains, nor was he teaching how to store lamp oil for future needs. The use of “talents” must be seen as the immensity of power that one receives when blessed by God’s (the Master’s) gifts of the Holy Spirit.

All that glisters is not gold. (The Merchant of Venice)

The Greek word “talanta” is plural number of the word “talanton,” which actually refers to a weight of silver or gold – roughly 75 pounds. This weight equates to about 6,000 silver denarii, but increases to 180,000 denarii (30x more) if the weight was in gold. There is nothing in the words of this parable that differentiates this weight of value as one or the other. Nowhere does the words “gold” or “silver” appear. This means a “talent” is meant to be understood as a general statement of value, which (as the money commercials for silver say) “Will never be worth nothing!” Still, a “talent” should be read generally as a precious commodity, one in which time usually yields increased value to fixed amounts held.

For this writing, I will try not to repeat what I have already posted; but because I strongly want to expound on a greatly ignored and misunderstood (or misrepresented) parable, I will add a few tidbits that I now see exposed.

(Isn’t it wonderful how re-reading Scripture always has something new to offer?)

First of all, we are presented a translation in verse 14 (the first verse of this reading), where we read: “Jesus said, “It is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them.” The Greek text literally states, “Just like for a man going on a journey called their own servants” , “and delivered to them the possessing of him.”

As two segments, the implication of the masculine plural “tous” allows me to see this as a statement of God using man as His servants, so “man going on a journey” becomes not the Master, but the Apostle(s). The journey will be a commitment of servitude, and that service to the LORD will lead to their being called “slaves.”

By reading the segment that says, “delivered to them the possessing of him,” this makes clear (in Christian ideology terms) the possession of the Holy Spirit. Because these three men have promised to serve the Master, that allowed them the addition (“and”) “of him” within. The Master never left them as they journeyed; he was in their hearts and minds. That presence means the three became elevated in Spirit by the gifts of “talents.”

Second, when we see the talents have been dispersed unequally (five to one, two to another, and one to the third), we read: “to each according to his ability.” The impact of those words makes one think in terms of “how much the slaves can handle.” This is not the only way the word “dynamin” should be read.

For such a “servant” to have some level of proven “ability” with money, it begs the question: “If the slave was so able to wisely invest money, why is he a slave and not a rich man in the first place, with his own slaves?” This possibility becomes the most likely, after one sees the “man on a journey” is a volunteer for God, sacrificing self-serving goals for the Father. Therefore, all three men should be equally able.

I imagine three children of a father being given their allowance. To the nine- year-old the father hands a five dollar bill. To the seven-year-old he hands a two dollar bill; and to the four-year old he hands a one dollar bill. After the father walks away, I’m sure the conversation between young boys would be something like this:

“Hey!” said the seven-year-old, “How come you get five dollars and I just get two?”

“Its cause you’re just little!” replies the nine-year-old.

Meanwhile, the four-year-old looks at the one dollar bill and says, “I’m going to buy lots of candy with my money.”

None of them could spend any of their money, since the father left. Without any ability to do anything with pieces of paper, there would no way the boys could spend it (much less invest it).

This is why “according to his ability” means what each had done to get the allowance – through chores and responsibilities that had been previously demonstrated. It has more to do with what one has earned, than being a statement of how able one is to run a farm or a household with land.

In the scenario of three sons, the older boy would have done more work than the younger boys. They were given an allowance that was proportionate, based on age. Thus, the nine-year-old was able to do more work and it was that experience that made him wiser, thus more capable of earning more. The youngest would have done the least, and therefore would be the least experienced mentally and be less physically adept. His lack of age and maturity would make him incapable of knowing how to volunteer for extra work (for pay) and he would not know how to do any unlearned work (for any bonuses that might come with pay).

This comparison to children and those immature of minds and bodies does not work as a comparison to this parable, once one sees the reaction the Master has when the slave given one talent does not produce a yield. When we hear the Master say to the one given one talent, “You wicked and lazy slave!”, we are told all three were equal mentally and physically. There were no lowered expectations from this third slave.

That third slave is then addressed based on the mind-body equality of the other two. By being called “Wicked” (from “Ponēre“) this becomes a statement of personal thought and the brain’s control. By being called “lazy” (from “oknēre“), that becomes a statement of personal effort. The capitalization of “Wicked” and the lower-case spelling of “lazy” is a subtle way of saying, “Where the brain leads, the body follows.”

That man admitted he had been “afraid” (“phobētheis”) and his only action was based on fear. That act was “to hide” (“ekrypsa”) the talent given him. To admit to burying it in the “ground” (“gē”), he confessed to feeling more secure with worldly values, than the spiritual gift he had been given.

This view of the Master’s, based on the misuse of a talent, says that the three slaves were the equivalents of people saying they served God, with all their heart and all their mind.

The first slave is then the example of one who had studied the Laws, prayed for guidance in understanding, gave a fair share of his wealth to the poor, raised his family to be faithful, and shared his knowledge of faith with others of like mind, who sought answers.

The second slave also studies the Laws and prayed for guidance, but he had no money, so he had no family, and had no influence because of that.

The third slave simply memorized the Laws, well enough to become wealthy from it, but that was his only positive. Otherwise, he prayed loudly in public, so his prayers were answered by those listening on earth (not God); he invested his wealth in the Temple, so he became richer as a business associate; he married for pleasure, to a woman only pretentiously faithful; and he never had children (at least of faith, none who could not see through his façade).

This unspoken way of seeing the Jews of Jesus’ day makes the allegory of the parable have real dimensions that helps to explain the symbolism of the Master giving different amounts of wealth to his slaves. While this view is not to be taken as “the Gospel,” it shows how the works of the slaves merited the dispersal of talents. Since many of the parables and stories told by Jesus were intended to slap the faces of those “wicked and lazy slaves” that were the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and Temple priests, this would then be how to see the one slave who did nothing to take a talent and make it grow.

Understanding this parable in that light then makes it possible to direct that light on today’s Christians. There are those who do the works necessary to warrant multiple gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are those who do what they can in limited circumstances, which thereby limits how many gifts they can use, so nothing goes to waste (their ability). Those are the ones whom the Master says, “Well done!” (“Eu“)

Then, there are those who know Scripture, but for all the wrong reasons. They are the ones who are afraid of losing what they can gain in the world, simply by telling people how to find God. They could “witness for Christ,” but there is no money to be made from that sacrifice. Some might call this group the “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

When the Master told that last slave, “You ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest,” this points the finger of guilt towards the ones who claim their success is proof that it had been given to them by God.

While those Christians may contribute to have beautiful churches to call their own, no church has ever saved one soul from damnation (as only people can). This means it would be better to give “one talent” of cash ($19.8k in going silver rates; $2.34 million if gold) to a local cab company, which would then instruct their drivers to wait outside the places of the night, with instructions to drive the guilty of sin (free of charge) to that man’s church. They the drunken bodies could be dumped on the church steps, so that maybe one in a million would actually go inside and pray to God for help. That one soul would then represent some R.O.I. as interest on the worth some man reaped from professing to believe in God. Instead, the analogy is that the wicked slave just paid bills for his or her church, which kept the lights and A/C on, the water bill paid, and a new roof in place every 20 years, while writing all that off on his income tax.

Finally, I would like to comment on the condemnation, where the Master gave the order, “Throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” This gives the impression that God has some “bouncer angels” that stand by His side, when He comes to visit the wicked and lazy. It gives the impression that God punishes people for evil deeds. That is wrong, simply because it takes the actions of a weak soul and makes God seem like a vengeful deity.

The word translated as “Throw” is “ekbalete,” which is fully shown as “throw out,” or “cast out,” or “banish.” It means “to drive out,” which makes this command not for someone else to administer, as it is done by the Master speaking. The slave immediately became an “outcast,” based on self actions (or inactions).

With this parable from the Gospel of Matthew being linked with the epistle of Paul, which spoke of sleeping at night and being in darkness, as opposed to true Apostles being “sons of light” and “sons of day,” the same use of metaphor is stated in this expulsion. All three slaves of the Master had the benefit of light and day, from which their talent(s) could grow and expand. However, because the one slave “hid” his talent “in the ground,” he covered that light up.

This is then an enactment of the English proverb, “to hide one’s light under a bushel.” That saying was rooted in Matthew 5:15, which states: “nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.” Because the one slave was more in love with the darkness and drunkenness of the earthly realm, he was the one who sealed his own fate by his confession of his deed. He got what he preferred. He sought an external light (the meaning of “exoteron,” or “outer”), rather than one that shines within his or her own heart and mind. Unfortunately, that external illusion of light is the darkness of mortal death.

When God, as the Master said, “Where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth,” an alternative translation of “weeping” is “lamentation.”

No, say it ain’t so! Make this failed election go away!

As Jeremiah wrote of the cries and tears that came from the Jews who had lost their precious land to invaders, the “weeping” was known by God. It is the moans and cries of those who realized their mistakes too late. God had ‘been there, done that’ with the Jews and Israelites, who wept and gnashed greatly; so Jesus could safely project that was the way of all losers – speaking for the Father.

The “gnashing (or grinding) of teeth” is what people do when they are angry, in one or two ways. Either anger causes teeth to grind because one faces a complete loss of control, when one wants to do something other than what one is being forced to do; or the gnashing of teeth comes when one has no one to blame but oneself. <Cue picture of Homer Simpson saying “Doh!”>

Both scenarios equally applied in this man’s case. Therefore, the Master simply pointed out what people bring upon themselves, where the 20/20 of hindsight means lots of tears and eroded enamel are typical. It is that fuzzy line between prophecy and high probability.

The moral of the story is to put oneself into this man’s position, where God presents one with a talent to use wisely. Then, rather than taking the money and running (or digging a hole in the ground and burying it), one needs to prove to God you will not waste away a good thing. A talent is a heavy responsibility (75 pounds); but you have to bear that load well and say, “Thank you Sir. May I have another?”

#Matthew251430 #Matthew515 #parableofthetalents

Language, Mark, Teaching

Mark 12:28-34 – Which commandment is the first of all?

January 15, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

One of the scribes came near and heard the Sadducees disputing with one another, and seeing that Jesus answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Then the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other’; and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’ —this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that no one dared to ask him any question.

———————————————————————————————————-

This is the Gospel selection from the Episcopal Lectionary for the Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, Year B 2018. In the numbering system that lists each Sunday in an ordinal fashion, this Sunday is referred to as Proper 26. It will next be read aloud in an Episcopal church by a priest on Sunday November 4, 2018. It is important because it shows that careful study of Scripture can yield its deeper (divine) intent to those who devote their lives to searching for the truth.

Often in the Gospels we read of “the scribes,” but might not know what that title meant in the days of Herod’s Temple and Jesus. Simply by the word implying a writer, it must be realized that a “scribe” (from the Greek “grammateōn“) is defined as: “In Jerusalem, a scribe, one learned in the Jewish Law, a religious teacher.” [Strong’s Concordance] When this is used in Biblical references, it means: “A man learned in the Mosaic law and in the sacred writings, an interpreter, teacher.” [Thayer’s Greek Lexicon]

According to the Wikipedia article entitled “Scribe,” the report for the title in Judaism states: “Scribes in Ancient Israel, were distinguished professionals who would exercise functions which today could be associated with lawyers, journalists, government ministers, judges, or financiers. Some scribes also copied documents, but this was not necessarily part of their job.”

With those definitions understood, a “scribe” would be similar today to a university professor of religious studies, one whose expertise would be in some field of Judeo-Christian knowledge. In cases of seminaries for various Christian denominations, such professors might even be ordained ministers. However, the world of academia has been found to be more lucrative to them, due to having a captive congregation that is required to purchase the “scribblings” of those professors in the school’s bookstore. [The ‘scribble or be scratched’ principle.]

By seeing that educational aspect – as teachers of Mosaic Law (Rabbis) – “the scribes” were the ones who had memorized the holy scrolls, interpreted their meanings, and taught that knowledge to the Sadducees, Pharisees and High Priests. Their minds were trained to see errors of reasoning and sound logic, which would be observed in the rabbis who would teach on the Temple’s steps. They would watch and listen as if each rabbi were being graded for their schooling, which in most cases was home-taught.

Having that understanding firm in hand, this chapter of Mark has skipped forward from when Jesus was leaving from beyond the Jordan, heading to Jerusalem for the Passover festival. Mark 11 began with the story of Jesus’ triumphal entry [the Palm Sunday lesson], but had Mark also writing of Jesus going out and back into Jerusalem. In those days prior to the Friday day of preparation for a Sabbath Passover [15 Nisan], Jesus taught on the Temple steps for four days. During those four days he was inspected and found without blemish (as are all sacrificial lambs slaughtered for Passover). [Jesus, after his arrest, would be inspected for four more days before being found ‘worthy’ of sacrifice, meaning there was a second inspection.]

When this reading begins by stating, “One of the scribes came near and heard the Sadducees disputing with one another, and seeing that Jesus answered them well,” Jesus had just passed an inspection. The Sadducees were disputing why their trap set for Jesus had failed, in reference to the resurrection. The Sadducees (like atheist Jews today) did not believe there was anything beyond physical life. Jesus left them reasoning among themselves [from the Hebrew “syzētountōn”], for having not realized that God is Lord of the living, not the dead. Jesus had added that souls do not marry nor have sex organs, as they are like angels.

Now, “one of the scribes” had given Jesus an A+ for that sermon, so he felt the need to ask Jesus about something that was personal to him. More than a test of knowledge, this scribe wanted to see if Jesus could answer a burning question within him, which meant his deep studies had led him to test himself with this question; in case some student might ask it some day. However, the scribe’s answer had not led him to be bold enough to let others know his inner feelings, largely because it could not be easily defended against biased reason. [Some times it is fear that keeps one from getting ‘outside the box’ of the usual and customary.]

The question the scribe asked to Jesus was, “Which commandment is the first of all?”

According to Exodus 20:3, the first of the Ten Commandments was: “Thou shall have no other gods before me.” [More on that later.] In response, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 to the scribe, where Deuteronomy 5 restated the Ten Commandments, with all restated as reminders of the Laws the Israelite had sworn to uphold, once they entered the Promised Land.

On a test at Jewish Rabbi School, a student priest would not have answered the way Jesus did. The scribe would have then marked a red X through that answer, making a note in the margin that said, “You misread the intent of “prōtē” (form of “prótos”),” which in Greek says, “first,” but also means “foremost” and “most important.”

After Jesus answered by quoting Deuteronomy 6:4, he added, “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” This was like going for extra credit on a test; but this addition was Jesus telling the scribe, “You must know that there is a duality to the most important commandment, such that one assumes the other. It is impossible to obey the love of God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength, when this commandment is demanded of all Israel. When the foremost commandment states, ‘God is one,’ then God is one with oneself and one’s neighbors, so one cannot give absolute total love to God without it also being a given that one must love one’s neighbors as oneself.”

The Greek word “deutera” was translated as “second,” but it also can mean “subsequently.” That means Jesus was staying within the parameters of giving one answer, but that primary commandment had an immediate element that came underlying it. Therefore, the word has the impact of “twice,” where there are two parts to the one answer.

There is nothing in Exodus or Deuteronomy that Jesus quoted when he gave that additional answer. His quote comes from Leviticus 19:18b. It is the second half of a law from an assortment of laws that is the fourth [and last] of a series that refers to “neighbors.” The verse fully says, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

Take a moment and think about that. What does that say to you?

[Que Jeopardy music]

Jesus was in Jerusalem being inspected as a sacrificial lamb. He would be found blemish free; but “one of the scribes” had just been told [without the use of spoken words], “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people.” Because of the scribe’s knowledge of the Torah, the omitted words did not go unnoticed. As one of the Temple insiders, he was aware of the plot to entrap Jesus. I imagine a cold shiver went down the scribe’s spine by Jesus reminding him of the “love thy neighbor as yourself” law.

That law, which is one of many in chapter 19 so the chapter is given a title by the New International Version as “Various Laws,” were those laws restated for all of the Israelites as well as those added specifically to the priests [the Levites] who would serve in the Temple. That would include scribes; that would include those sacrificing lambs for the Passover festival. The foremost commandment for Jews, especially the ruling elite, said love God totally, and love all who also love God totally as an extension of yourself … as God.

I imagine that one scribe had figured that out over the years. He realized that God never told Moses to establish a hierarchy or point system, like being one of His priests was akin to degrees [of knowledge] given to Freemasons or degrees [of physical progress] given to martial arts enthusiasts. A Rabbi was not expected to post his knowledge on the wall of the synagogue, like a restaurant has to let customers know how clean the inspectors found it. All Rabbi are expected to be the same in knowledge, with all connected to the same Godhead.

Being an Israelite was never meant to come with a box of business cards that announced, “I graduated in the lower ten percent of my class, but I did graduate!” Such announcements are worthless for doctors, lawyers, accountants, and college professors.

All of the Jews (as the ‘second time around’ children trying to reclaim their birthright as God’s chosen people) were expected to totally love God. Having already experienced what failing to follow all the laws of Moses had led their ancestors to experience, there could be no exceptions this time around. That was why the Second Temple was manned with no nonsense scribes and priests. The Pharisees and Sadducees [the Law Police] were supposed to be laying down an ‘all or nothing’ scenario.

Unfortunately, this one scribe had seen many a poor excuses for those claiming to be the children of God in his day, with few living up to expectations. That, undoubtedly, caused him to wonder: “With so many laws routinely broken, which is the foremost commandment that makes one worthy of God’s love?”

Having heard the answer given by Jesus, the scribe was moved to say: “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other’; and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’ —this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” The emotion of that response needs to be grasped.

The actual Greek begins that response is two one-word statements of importance, as was written in a capitalized “Kalōs” and (following a comma) a capitalized “Didaskale.” This not only made a “You are correct, sir!” statement (where “Kalōs” means “Right”) – as a professor passing a student’s paper – but it also stated the excellence of insight that the scribe knew Jesus possessed, by his ability to give the answer he gave. Because Jesus answered quickly, without hesitation or prayerful meditation, he gave an answer of highest honor, as recognition that Jesus was connected to the Godhead [a.k.a. the Christ Mind]. That inner source of wisdom meant the scribe could declare Jesus truly as a “Teacher” and “Master.”

The scribe recognized that Jesus had spoken the truth (from the Greek word “alētheias”), which according to the rules of Logic is an undefeatable conclusion. A ‘false’ answer is when the words are twisted to fit a biased conclusion, which was how one used Logic to uncover ‘false shepherds’. Without Jesus saying directly to the scribe as he did so often, “Truthfully I say,” the scribe confirmed that Jesus spoke the truth. That implied that Jesus spoke as a vehicle of the Lord.

When the scribe said, “He is one, and besides him there is no other,” he was quoting Scripture as had Jesus, while adding a clarification for the quote of Jesus – “the Lord is one.” The Greek word “heis” can mean “one,” as a cardinal number. This is like the first Commandment, which says, “Thou shall have no other gods before me,” as if that said God was number One. The word in Hebrew that says, “God is one,” is “echad,” where it too has a similar scope of meaning, based on intent of usage.

Both the Hebrew and Greek words can mean “alone” or “singularly,” and this was what the scribe was adding by saying, “besides him there is no other.” God is love, such that to love God means to become one with God. In that way oneself becomes singularly focused on God.

First Commandment that is commonly accepted as stating, you shall have no other gods before me is stated in Hebrew as, “lō -yih·yeh lə·ḵā ’ĕ·lō·hîm ’ă·ḥê·rîm- ‘al pā·nā·ya.” This can literally be translated as: “not shall have you gods other upon face.” The last two words, “‘al pā·nā·ya” are rooted in “al panim (or paneh).” The primary translation of “panim” is as “face, faces.” The translation recognized as “You shall not have other gods before me,” says that “before me” means “face of you before” or “face before,” with “me” being implied.

A scribe (fluent in Hebrew) would know this aspect of facing God, as well as the history of Moses’ face glowing after meeting with God.

For one who studied the Torah all day, every day, this first commandment would imply the oneness of God means all Israelites (like Moses) were expected to love God so much that they would become one with God, thereby wearing His face. Moses was a model of what being an Israelite should be … not an example of superhuman talents that no one could ever duplicate. As the model of righteousness, any face worn other than God’s (including one’s own) would constitute worshipping some other “elohim” (the “gods”). God and another is then duality, not singularity. This means the scribe who questioned Jesus had also deeply looked at this commandment (Exodus 20:3) and this was why he added, “besides him there is no other.”

The Greek word written that has been translated as “besides” is “plēn.” This adverb can give the impression of the preposition “beside,” leading one’s mind to imagine empty space to the right and left of God. For many Christians today, they believe Jesus Christ sits “beside” God, to his right hand side. This image makes it difficult to see how there is only One God, as many Christians pray to Jesus as if he were an elohim. The better translation of “plēn” is then as “except that” or “only,” such that the scribe said, “only him there is … no other.”

That was when the scribe told Jesus an extra credit aside, like Jesus had added a second commandment. He was linking the most important commandment with the first commandment, so the true children of God could only wear the face of God on their faces. No other face would be Yahweh’s.

That addition then linked to the next partial quote, where the scribe remembered: “to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength.” To recognize there was only One God, and no other, was dependent on loving God with all one’s heart. It was then from the love that one would become one with the One God; and that union [marriage] meant access to the Godhead [Christ Mind] where “all understanding” becomes possible.

The Greek word translated as “strength” is “ischyos,” which can also mean “power, might, force, ability.” The Hebrew word that ends Deuteronomy 6:4 and is commonly translated as “strength” (from which the scribe was quoting) is “mə·’ō·ḏe·ḵā” [“your strength”]. This is rooted in “meod,” which also means “muchness, abundance, and exceedingly,” with some usage indicating “duplication.” [Brown–Driver–Briggs] Thus, love of God allows one to have the knowledge of God duplicated or abundantly placed within one, as an extension of God [which means wearing His face].

When one has reached this state of duplicating God on earth, one must then be aware of others who also wear the face of God. Those others will also be loving God with all their hearts, having the same access to God’s wisdom and abundance. This is then how it becomes a natural extension of the foremost commandment “to love one’s neighbor as oneself.” This presumes a “neighbor” is understood as another child of the One God and not just anyone roaming the face of the earth. After all, Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

The Hebrew word that is translated as “neighbor” is “amith.” That word means, “an associate, fellow, relation.” The word can be used to indicate a “friend,” where it was originally used to denote the Israelites who were isolated, together in the wilderness. A friend would be someone not of direct lineage, thus not close family, making a “friend” be an associate, fellow, or relation of Jacob in some way, as a child chosen by God to be His priest. The Greek word written in Mark is “plēsion” [“your neighbor”], which means someone who lives “nearby” or a “friend.” Again, the Jews of that era did not live in mixed subdivisions. They lived among their own people [many still do today], so someone “nearby” would be a Jew, as would be their “friends.”

This meant that loving another Jew, one who also loved God as much as commanded by God, must be loved as oneself. One is God. The other is God. All love God and God loves all. This is the meaning the scribe saw the foremost commandment as a natural amendment to love of God.

The scribe then added to the “love your neighbor as yourself” statement, saying “this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” This revelation was what the scribe saw in the twice daily sacrifices on the Temple altar, commanded by God as “peace offerings” as well as those for atonement of sins. While such sacrifices were made to appease God, as admissions of human frailties and a lack of commitment to love God totally, the scribe saw letting animals be sacrificed rather than self-ego as opening the flood-gates to sin, which could never lead the faithful to follow the most important commandments and its dual command to love spiritually and physically.

Look at it this way: Rather than sacrificing your milk cow for this coming weekend’s wild sins, you just pay a small indulgence fee.

Jesus [knowing he was about to become the substitute sacrificial animal for sinning Jews] heard the wisdom coming from the scribe and knew the scribe was led by God the Father. For that reason he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” In that statement, the Greek word “basileias” is translated as “kingdom.” The word better conveys Jesus’ intent as, “rule, especially of God, both in the world, and in the hearts of men.” [Strong’s Concordance]

Knowing that a scribe’s task was to interpret Scripture and then teach that meaning to rabbinical students, rules were more important than kingdoms. As much of that meant teaching an understanding of Mosaic Law [or Rules to live by], Jesus’ comment struck to the heart of the scribe. While still meaningful but less clearly caught by the spoken word, Mark capitalized the Greek word “Ou,” which is an important “Not.”

Rather than a simple, “You are not far away,” Mark wrote “Not far are you from this,” such that the capitalized negation has the power of converting this to a positive statement. The capitalization then implies that Jesus intended to state, “You are close to the rule of God.” For a human being, close to God was how Jesus was. Therefore, Jesus blessed the scribe with neighborly love.

They both loved God with all their hearts, with all their souls, with all their minds, and with all their abundances. Once they discovered two children of God were at the same place, at the same time, they loved one another as neighborly brothers. Because the scribe was spying on Jesus for the Temple, which led to this encounter, the love the scribe then felt for Jesus was why we read, “After that no one dared to ask him any question.”

Jesus had passed his inspection for blemishes that day. The scribe departed and would no longer play a role in the entrapment of Jesus. He waved off the Sadducees, as if to say, “The party’s over fellows. It’s quitting time.”

“I thought for sure the widow of seven brothers trap would work.”

As the Gospel selection for the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, when one’s own personal ministry for the LORD should be underway – one has put on the face of God and lovingly embraces all other true Christians – the message here is to realize reading Bible verses from the Holy Bible your grandmother gave you when you were baptized as a child is only one tiny step in the thousands of steps that God expects His chosen servants to take. We are all called to be devoted scribes if we are ever going to be close to God. We have to write the meaning of Scripture ourselves … not just be rocked to sleep by someone else reading to us, showing us pretty pictures.

Beginning with the simple question, “Which commandment is the first of all?” one must seriously ask oneself, “Could I have answered the way Jesus did?”

Chances are that most people would have to honestly answer, “No.”

Bible Studies is the greatest failure of Christians. Most who call themselves Christian were raised in a church, forced to go there by their parents. They were placed in a Children’s Church or Sunday School program and taught the Bible with picture books. Those children that did not leave the church once they went to college or just got old enough to tell mom, “I’m not going anymore!” rarely do more than listen to sermons as adults, having little idea of what’s written. Even the ones that go to a seminary to become a minister, priest, pastor or preacher, they are more often than not taught not to believe what they learned as children.

Christians today are not enlightened. Sadly, it is the blind leading the blind – a normal way of mortal life.

Has anyone taught you the most important commandment is to love God and then love your neighbor as yourself? Has anyone said the heathen of no religious values are who Jesus meant … who the scribe meant … who Moses meant … who God meant, when the most important commandment was to love “neighbors” as yourself?

If they have, love is not showing very well. The world is in turmoil. One man’s “neighbor” is another man’s enemy. We live amid those who are most difficult to call “friends, relations, or associates,” simply because they have far different values.

Has anyone ever said, “We are Protestants so we hate Catholics” or “We are Catholics so we hate Jews”? Has anyone ever said, “We are Muslims so we hate Jews” or “We are Iranians so we hate Americans”?

Sometimes it seems like religion has turned into cage fights for entertainment, where hatred between two people claiming to love God [by whatever name] have nothing but hatred uncontrollably come spewing out. It is not the love of God or neighbor, but hatred of anyone who has socio-political-philosophical beliefs different than mine!

As I was looking through Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus to see what was written there, I couldn’t help but see the surrounding text. The Deuteronomy 6:5 verse quoted by Jesus and the scribe leads to the following:

“These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deuteronomy 6:6-9)

That says how one who loves God totally is. Loving one’s neighbor as oneself means devoted study of Scripture and talking about it. It means raising one’s children to be able to talk about it when your neighbors are not around. It means loving God so much you want to share that love with others who love God like you do. When no one is around, you pull out the Holy Bible and start reading, all the time listening for the inner voice to say, “Write this down and ask the neighbor what that means to him or her.”

Jesus found one scribe like that in all of Jerusalem. I can only imagine the glow each had surrounding them as they walked back home after that encounter.

Additional proof:

This is one example of hatred. A collared Methodist feels he has been sent by God to place blame on all he does not agree with. The “caravan” of potential invaders are not true Christians trying to steal something they have no claim to – American asylum or residence. It is purely a political issue that only involves those who pretend to be religious in order to serve political “gods” [“elohim”]. Everything this “pastor” shouted at a career politician could equally be shouted at the leaders of Honduras, Ecuador and Mexico, but souls have been sold to the financiers [philosophers] of politicians not in power in the USA, to show religious hatred [not love of God and Christian neighbors] in front of news cameras. The face worn by political protesters is most certainly not the face of God.

Religious leaders interrupt Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ speech: “Brother Jeff, as a fellow United Methodist I call upon you to repent, to care for those in need.”
Sessions: “Well, thank you for those remarks and attack but I would just tell you we do our best everyday” pic.twitter.com/NUq5HSZZMg
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) October 29, 2018

Hebrews, Language, Teaching

Hebrews 9:11-14 – Purification of flesh or soul?

January 15, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

When Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!

———————————————————————————————————-

This is the Epistle selection from the Episcopal Lectionary for the Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, Year B 2018. In the numbering system that lists each Sunday in an ordinal fashion, this Sunday is referred to as Proper 26. It will next be read aloud in an Episcopal church by a reader on Sunday November 4, 2018. It is important because Paul connected Jesus as the high priest to his willingness to make himself a holy sacrifice. Apostles and Saints have been made possible by the high priest being resurrected in those who are also reborn through self-sacrifice.

This reading selection follows ten verses written by Paul, which focus on the physical tabernacle that was erected in the wilderness. Paul reviewed the entrance of the priests into an earthly place and the order of responsibilities that recognized the tabernacle as holy ground. This history is not a creation in the desert of the Sinai, but a recreation of the sacrifices and gifts each family performed in Egypt, in preparation for the Passover. The priests, high priest, and tabernacle are the microcosm of the overall plan for righteous living by all.

A marked by blood tabernacle, with priests inside? If death passes by, is not eternal life gained?

Once again, we have a translation that is one-dimensional, as it projects the righteousness of Jesus as singularly important, as if God would bless His own Son with the qualification of a high priest, while leaving the masses in awe of an unreachable status. That is not what the multiplicity of meaning states, as the same words written not only point to the truth of the read aloud translation but also point to the same state of holiness being made possible to all God’s servants.

To make this shown, I will present the literal translation possibilities, as made visible by the Bible Hub Interlinear page for Hebrews 9. I recommend all readers see for themselves how the following translation is found. As is my practice, I list the segments of words, which are based on the placement of punctuation marks (real or implied). Please note that capitalized words bear an importance that needs to be understood. In this four-verse selection, there are five capitalized words. Two are “Christ” and two are “God,” where importance is easily grasped. However, the capitalized “If” should be seen as the significance of a condition, such that a “big if” is the intent.

Hebrews 9

11. Christ now ,

having appeared as high priest all having come good in nature ,

by the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands ,

he is ,

not this those creation ,

12. not by blood of goats and calves ,

through on the other hand followers blood ,

he entered once for all into the sacred ones ,

eternal redemption having obtained .

13. If through the blood of goats ,

and bulls ,

and ashes of a heifer ,

sprinkling those who having been defiled ,

sanctify with this people flesh purification ,

14. how much more condition blood followers of Christ ,

those whom by the instrumentality of Spirit eternal ,

ourselves offered unblemished condition to God ,

will cleanse those conscience ourselves [ego] from dead works ,

towards followers to serve God living !

Verse 11 begins with the capitalized “Christos,” which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah.” To grasp this meaning here in a vacuum [no lead in verses to aid interpretation], one has to see that Paul did not write Jesus’ name. Alone, “Christ” is that which comes from God, making one be The Anointed One. We know [we profess to know] that Jesus was so Anointed by God; but interpreting “Christ” as Jesus Christ is limiting God’s ability to Anoint any number of Apostles and Saints in the name of Jesus Christ, making them also possess the Christ Spirit.

We heard the blind beggar call out, “Son of David.” Was not David the anointed one by God, through His high priest Samuel?

In verse five, Paul named Aaron as the high priest of the first tabernacle. In verse seven, Paul told of the ritual sacrifices made in the designated area of the tabernacle, by the high priest, for himself and the people’s sins of ignorance. In verse eight, Paul stated that “the Holy Spirit had not yet been manifest into those holy places.” By realizing that lost text, one can then see that verse eleven begins by saying the tabernacle – the holy place erected for the high priest – was “now Christ.” However, the tabernacle is no longer one man-made but human, as “all having come good in nature.” It is in those tabernacles of flesh that “he is.” High priests are not “institutions” or “created beings via ordinance” [ordained holy by men not holy]. All high priests now must be Christ reborn.

Verse 12 then continues this line of thought by saying there can no longer be animal sacrifices for a priest [ordained and/or elevated in rank] or the people to have their sins of ignorance wiped clean. Instead, it is through the followers having sacrificed themselves, becoming filled with the blood of Christ [i.e.: the Holy Spirit, the “blood” relationship to Jesus Christ, as the Son of Man reborn]. Jesus is reborn [“entered into once for all”], so his presence signifies a Saint [“sacred ones”]. This is the only sacrifice that forever offers eternal redemption.

Verse 13 then begins with the capitalized “Ei,” meaning “If, For as much as, That, Whether and/or Suppose.” This is then stating a conditional scenario, which states the circumstances by which a premise is true. It acts as a statement of assumption, in order to determine if some condition is indeed fact. The ‘big If’ is then saying, “If the practices of animal sacrifice did have any effect for sanctifying, then it would only be a purification of flesh, because only flesh has been effected by animal blood being sprinkled or ashes from burned animal carcasses being smeared symbolically on flesh.

One needs to see how such animal sacrifices are common throughout the world, in many cultures that have been isolated from other religious practices and ceremonies. The Christian act of using oil and ashes to make the foreheads of believes on Ash Wednesday falls into this symbolism having zero effect on a spiritual transformation within a human being. Thus, Paul was stating If someone thinks a physical act of ritual has had any effect on the absolution of sins, it is akin to baptism by water, where only the flesh has been changed, for only that day … not eternally.

And the Baptizer said, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Luke 3:16)

Verse 14 says that spiritual transformation is “so much more” than burnt offerings. The “condition” that was set up by the “If” is now turned to the “blood” of the “followers” of Jesus of Nazareth. They must sacrifice themselves, so their blood is spilled on the altar where “Christ” is the high priest officiating that service. This leads to a “thorough” cleansing [“by the instrumentality of” from “dia”] by the Holy Spirit, which is not a temporal change, but an “eternal” transformation. Rather than Jesus of Nazareth being offered in sacrifice after being found blemish free, it is “ourselves offered,” because that is the “condition of God” [from “tō Theō”]. The words translated as “ourselves” are “heauton and hēmōn,”with “hēmōn” a form of “egó,” or the “self.” Neither are limited to only translating as “himself” or “us.” The last two segments then says, “We sacrifice the dead works of mortal selves to become the living servants of God.”

As the Epistle reading selection for the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, when one’s own personal ministry for the LORD should be underway – one should have sacrificed one’s self-ego on the altar of one’s tabernacle body – the message is to see that the only atonement for one’s sins of ignorance is to be a willing sacrifice for a higher goal, as was Jesus of Nazareth. One does not simply change overnight; so it takes time to convince God one is not trying to pull some wool over His All-seeing Eye.

It is worthwhile to realize the changes that Paul wrote of in the first [unread] ten verses of this chapter. By seeing how Paul [who personally experienced the animal sacrifices of the Temple in Jerusalem] wrote of a significant change, from an accepted practice to one that no longer pleased God, this is not the only example found in the Bible.

In Genesis we find the sons of Adam offering burnt offerings to God. God liked Abel’s sacrifice of the firstborn of the flock, but did not recognize the offering of the first fruits by Cain. That began the ceremonial offering of animal sacrifice. When the story in Genesis gets to Abraham and Isaac the aspect of human sacrifice was introduced. An angel of the Lord stopped that slaughter, because the physical killing was not the desire of God, so a human being could be recognized as one of the lineage of high priests. Finally, the sacrifice of yearling lambs that were blemish free and the smearing of that blood on the doorways of the Israelite families, with the burnt offerings made in the home ovens was the model from which the Passover would arise, with each Israelite deemed a priest who performed such ritual sacrifices. The tabernacle and its high priests were prophetic models of Apostles that would come after Jesus became the sacrificial lamb. That was the pleasing human sacrifice God originally intended.

In the books of the prophets, God said he no longer was pleased by sacrifices of animals and burnt offering. Through Isaiah He said, “The multitude of your sacrifices– what are they to me?” says the LORD. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.” (Isaiah 1:11) In Amos was written, “Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them.” (Amos 5:22) Even David sang, “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.” (Psalm 51:16) All of this says that God knew His Son would be the last physical sacrifice that would satisfy the desire of God.

This had to have been known to the returning Jews, as they expanded their self-cleansing with water rituals, such that dunking into river water became a rebellious admission of sins of the spirit. The ‘wildcat’ rabbis – like John the Baptizer – made that a man-made sacrifice, in hopes that God would be pleased by those acts of admission of sins. Christians today still see the washing of physical water as a magical protection of the body, where admission of Jesus as the Christ washes away all sins and seals one’s soul for Heaven. This reading from Paul says that all physical acts, even If emotionally moving and in some way believed to be a pact with God, the soul cannot be changed by symbolic rituals of physical elements.

As an accompanying Epistle reading for the Gospel selection from Mark 12, where a scribe and Jesus agreed that the foremost commandment was to love God completely, without reservation, it is that unconditional love of God that prepares one’s body of flesh to be sanctified and holy. This is a heartfelt entrance of God into one’s being, where God is absolute Spiritual. His Holy Spirit must baptize the soul, once and forevermore of sin. This makes the body and soul the holy ground of a tabernacle, in which Jesus Christ performs the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb, upon the altar that is one’s heart. The spiritual blood of Christ then fills the human brain (self-ego then dead) with the Mind of Christ. There is nothing physical that can be perceived in this transformation of one’s soul.

All human beings are born with the only assured end being physical death. The souls, being eternal, returns to another body that will die at some time. It becomes a seemingly endless cycle of birth, life, and death. It is like being on a carousel or merry-go-round, where grabbing the brass ring wins one the right to get off the circular ride of physical life and gain admittance into God’s realm.

The brass ring then symbolizes one’s devotion to loving God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength.

To even try to reach that goal, one has to ride the galloping steeds on the outer ring of the carousel. Sitting in the bench-seats on the interior keeps one from having a chance.

#Amos522 #Hebrews91114 #Isaiah111 #Psalm5116

Language, Ruth, Teaching

Ruth 1:1-18 – Turn back, my daughters, go your way

January 15, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land, and a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the country of Moab, he and his wife and two sons. The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion; they were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. When they had lived there about ten years, both Mahlon and Chilion also died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.

Then she started to return with her daughters-in-law from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country of Moab that the Lord had considered his people and given them food. So she set out from the place where she had been living, she and her two daughters-in-law, and they went on their way to go back to the land of Judah. But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back each of you to your mother’s house. May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. The Lord grant that you may find security, each of you in the house of your husband.” Then she kissed them, and they wept aloud. They said to her, “No, we will return with you to your people.” But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? Turn back, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I should have a husband tonight and bear sons, would you then wait until they were grown? Would you then refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, it has been far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of the Lord has turned against me.” Then they wept aloud again. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.

So she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said,

“Do not press me to leave you
or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go;
Where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people,
and your God my God. Where you die, I will die—
there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me,
and more as well,if even death parts me from you!”

When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her.

———————————————————————————————————-

I need to be honest here for a moment.

Whenever I hear the name Ruth, my mind immediately goes to The Firesign Theatre [a comedy group from the late 1960’s and early 1970’s … and beyond] and an audio sketch they did on their album How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You’re Not Anywhere at All. Side two of that record was a mock of a fictitious 1941 radio serial “The Further Adventures of Nick Danger.” As that supposed radio re-broadcast began and the narrator was building up the suspense of the play, he spoke of the bravery of the private detective, Nick Danger. As the narrator boldly spoke, “ruthlessly,” the character muttered, “I wonder where Ruth is.” That comedic line struck me as so funny that I cannot help but remember it whenever someone says, “Ruth.”

Now, the mother of my best neighborhood friend while growing up was named Ruth. I never think of her when the Book of Ruth is mentioned by anyone. I think of that gag from The Firesign Theatre because the only time I hear of the Book of Ruth is when the Revised Common Lectionary devotes two Sundays into optional readings from Ruth, of which the reading above is the first. The Episcopal Church only reads from Ruth during Year B.

While a member of one large Episcopal church, there was a female priest [one of two, with a head priest that was male] who led a women’s Bible Study on Wednesday afternoons. One year the group’s discussions focused on the Book of Ruth. I assume [or heard mentioned] the Book of Ruth was important for women to understand. Being forbidden from attending that study group because I am male, I have no idea why that was.

Personally, I felt that Bible study segregated by gender was wrong, as it shunned the sharing of insight with men. I still feel that way. To have a Bible studies group led by a female priest was certainly not a problem, as gender does not prevent or assist one, as far as having the Holy Spirit’s guidance to understanding Scripture. To have a mid-week study group be led by a woman priest and only teach women made me imagine that women must feel a need to get together and discuss ‘women needs from Scripture’ was from a need to find strength dealing with and maintaining a wife’s subservience to a husband. If it was not that, then I wondered if it were a private revolutionary programming of women, against the male dominated world, in an ever-changing Women’s Power indoctrination. Neither would be a worthwhile agenda for a Bible studies group.

Happily, I did not dwell long on being outcast from that Bible study that focused on the Book of Ruth. I kept saying to myself, “I wonder where Ruth is.”

Still, for all who are familiar with my interpretations that say all true Christians are “brothers,” which means males and females are both reborn as the Sons of God [Jesus Christ] and all who are familiar with my having stated that all true Christians are the wives of God, regardless of human gender, Ruth is likewise meant for both human genders to see as a model of themselves. It is a great flaw in this modern version of Christianity that relegates women as nuns and males as priests. It is not meant for only males to speak for the Father, such that male priests are called “Father,” while female priests are downgraded to “Mother” status [a pagan title that bears importance, more than a designation of a woman who heads a convent]. Alas, women in leadership roles in Christianity are still hard to classify, simply because of self-imposed human gender issues.

Rather than one outhouse, indoor plumbing has created the need to gender identification rooms.

Everybody who reads the Book of Ruth needs to go beyond those gender issues and see him or herself as Ruth, a devoted wife of God. In this beginning to the story of Ruth we are given a background scenario. While all of this should be read as truth and many encouraging elements of this story told can be beneficial to women that struggle for a voice in a male-dominated world, the story has to be raised to a higher level of truth, where metaphor and symbolism must be understood. None of this has anything to do with human sexuality or gender.

The first thing one should be aware of is Scripture is always about YOU. An event that occurred long ago (which scholars may battle over whether or not it actually happened, saying it might have been made up) is meaningless history, unless it has bearing on life today. This is why all the characters of the stories are in some way reflections of what one needs to see in oneself, mostly that which needs to be corrected.

When that set of eyes become focused on this story, one should see how “In the days when the judges ruled” is relative to these days, when the children of Israel [i.e.: Christians today] are not individually led by the Holy Spirit. The “judges” (from the Hebrew “haš·šō·p̄ə·ṭîm”) are those men (and women) who the people [i.e.: Christians] accept as those who graduate from seminaries and are elevated through years of service as the voices of God. Such “judges” today range from popular televangelists, to best-selling book authors and megachurch pastors, to a South American socialist pope and to a rising number of bishops who are known more for their race, gender, and/or sexual preferences than they are known for teaching others to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

That grasp of current religious trends fits into the times when Canaan was filled with Israelites, in Twelve Tribes, whose religious leaders were spread about to all the nooks and crannies of the land where those people had been dispersed. While the Book of Judges focuses on the series of rescuer judges, there were an untold many who were quite slack in their righteous judgment, so the people invariably backslid into sinful ways. It was the punishment of those sins (by those who despised their land being stolen by foreigners) that kept leading the faithful to their knees, where they cried out to God for mercy and redemption. The Book of Ruth is telling of one of those down periods, when “there was a famine in the land.” There is currently such a “famine” in Christianity; but no one is crying out for redemption, as they are too busy crying out for the blood of their political enemies.

When we read, “a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the country of Moab,” it is important to know that “a certain man” is a generic way of identifying a known person, but one who is too young to name. The Hebrew word that is translated as “a certain man” is “’îš,” which is rooted in “ish,” meaning “man.” When one knows “adamah” is another Hebrew word for “man” [actually meaning “red” or “clay,” which is then combined with “ish” – “clay man”], “a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah” is known today as Jesus.

When “Moab” is known to be the land settled by Lot in Genesis and not part of the Promised Land of Abraham, this should be grasped on today’s terms as a land of Gentiles, albeit a land that welcomed Israelites. The United States of America (as well as all nations where Christianity has been accepted) is where Gentiles have welcomed Jesus into their midst. While the religious values of Moab were different than those handed down by Moses to the Israelites [pagan rituals that were rooted in multiple deities], the marriage of Christian rituals with pagan rituals becomes a reflection of the how the Roman Catholic Church won over pagans by adhering Jewish festivals to pagan holy days, creating a new religion that was led by “judges.” Still, that religion is caused by “famine.”

Realizing that, this is where the names of the characters have meanings that perfectly relate to today’s Christians. Here is a list of the players:

Elimelech = God Is King.
Naomi = My Delight; Pleasantness of the Lord
Mahlon = Great Infirmity; Man of Weakness; Sickly
Chilion = Wasting Away; Pining; Consuming
Orpah = Mane; Neck
Ruth = Beauty

With that known, look at how the story unfolds.

Jesus is given the name that means “God Is King.” Jesus is married to his followers, who were Jews initially, who take on the name that projects the “Pleasantness of the Lord.” The sons that were born of the marriage between Jesus Christ and Apostles – Saints in the name of Jesus Christ – were the synagogues of Judaism that believed Jesus was their Messiah and the churches of Christianity that were created by Gentiles believing that Jesus was the Christ. One religion is then named “Great Infirmity” and the other is named “Wasting Away,” which indicates a weakness seen in both of them by their Father, when they were born.

The “Great Infirmity” in Judaism is it sought to remain one with the Jews, while not being welcoming to Gentiles. The same exclusivity can be seen in the Roman Catholic Church, such that it refuses to recognize non-Catholics as worthy to receive sacramental rites. James, the saintly brother of Jesus, tried to convert Jews, so all would realize the faith of God’s people had been rewarded by Jesus Christ. The Mosaic Law and all the expectations of the remnant of Israel were to be upheld; and, due to the fact that the Christian Church accepted Gentiles, there was little reason to convert Gentiles to Judaism, a form that converted Jews to belief in Christ. The “Sickly” aspect of Judaism was its Zionist branch, which saw the return of national status, through the possession of the Holy Land, as why God chose the children of Israel.

The “Wasting Away” was then Christianity. The strength of Judaism was it being considered a race of bloodline. While its numbers would stay relatively low compared to all in the human race, it would grow in numbers. Its weakness was always having the “Great Infirmity” of works, where their self-imposed restriction to fellow Jews kept their Christian numbers “Sickly” low. Christianity, on the other hand, would grow by leaps and bounds, but then reach an apex that began a slow and steady decline.

“God Is King” saw those ends coming, when he gave his children those names. We are living today in the aftermath of those two children having passed away. Still, Jesus knew his own death would be prior to those deaths.

When the story tells, “But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons,” this is not a reference to Jesus of Nazareth being crucified. There is no death, but a period of transformation and change, where the initial spread of Christianity ended. It says that Jesus Christ would be removed as the husband of Apostles and Saints, which had the effect of stripping the wife, “Pleasantness of the Lord,” from passing on the Holy Spirit directly. At that time, Saints became only recognized through the two religions of Jesus Christ.

When the story says, the two churches “took Moabite wives,” this is a marriage with the pagan Gentiles that took place in Western Europe and the Middle East (including Eastern Europe). This was during the Jewish diaspora from Judea, following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Jews in the Jewish–Roman wars (66 – 135 CE).

The wife of “Great Infirmity” was then “Mane” or “Neck,” which traveled the shortest distance. Nearby lands were where the seven churches listed in John’s Apocalypse were. Those people extended into the surrounding areas: Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Romania, and into Mesopotamia, Persia and lands to the north and east. The husband of the Middle East and Eastern Europe was the Eastern Orthodox Church and all the variations thereof. The Jewish religion became absorbed in that “Neck” of the world.

Could this be the neck with a European head and Asian body?

The wife of “Wasting Away” was then the “Beauty” of Northern and Western Europe. The husband of Northern and Western Europe was then the Roman Catholic Church. The Jewish religion also became absorbed by the “Beauty” of Roman culture and architecture.

In both areas, the people had been cut off from directly being in touch with Jesus Christ, which is the symbolism of that change that came from institutions of ritual. With the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (the famine that sent Christianity into the surrounding world), the people were no longer taught to be filled by the Holy Spirit by Apostles and Saints. Following that historic change, the two churches that were already destined to likewise transform and change did so. They both died, as no longer being powers of influence.

When the story tells, “the woman [Naomi – “Pleasantness of the Lord” – the Apostles – Saints] was left without her two sons and her husband,” there was no longer any association with an organized religion promoting access to God’s Holy Spirit. This state of divine “Pleasantness” was then left in the company of Gentile converts to Christianity, but the weaknesses that were inherent in the two churches had failed to elevate the people to Apostle-Saint status. They were merely followers of a religion that promoted belief, without teaching how to be reborn as Jesus Christ – knowing “God Is King.” They had only been taught the laws of Moses as the cornerstone upon which laws should be built.

To then read, “[Pleasantness of the Lord] started to return with her daughters-in-law from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country of Moab that the Lord had considered his people and given them food,” this means God spoke to His Saints, Apostles, Prophets and Holy Priests saying that the Kingdom of God was theirs. The return to Judah [which is a name that means “Let Him (God) Be Praised”] was the promise of eternal life, with the remainder of one’s time on earth spent as a Church of Christ [Paul’s Tabernacle with its spiritual high priest].

By realizing this singularity of responsibility to please God, we read how the Apostles and Saints said to the Gentile people who had joined their respective churches due to belief and not true faith: “Go back each of you to your mother’s house [motherland]. May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead [the collapse of Eastern and Western churches – plus Judaism] and with me [the Apostles and Saints honored by those institutions]. The Lord grant that you may find security, each of you in the house of your husband [the respective church of each, with whom the people married].”

The release of the people of the “Mane” of the Middle East and Eastern Europe was the collapse of the religion due to the rise of Communism. The Russian and Romanian Orthodox churches fell to the atheist governments and the Armenian Christians, Jewish Christians and Arab Christians were slain by Islamic extremism. Like Samson [a judge], the “Mane” was cut, exposing the “Neck,” making Christianity powerless in those places. This was the symbolism of “she kissed them [a goodbye kiss … a kiss of death], and they wept aloud [from knowing the outcome before it happened].”

The release of the people of “Beauty” would come from the beheading of the royalty of France, due to the influence of Zionists in Geneva. Without a bloodline of Jesus being present in the rulers of nations, the moneychangers would then strip the Church of Rome [and all its Reformation derivatives] of any real influence over the people. The “Beauty” created by the power and wealth of a corrupted Church was overturned by the same lusts and greed that had overcome it from within. Instead of a Church offering spiritual promises, philosophical concepts of republics and democracies promised the people freedom through equality. Likewise, there was the goodbye kiss and tears from knowing this change could not be righted.

When the Apostles and Saints [“Pleasantness of the Lord”] said to the people of all Europe and the Middle East, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? Turn back, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I should have a husband tonight and bear sons, would you then wait until they were grown? Would you then refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, it has been far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of the Lord has turned against me,” the symbolism needs to be grasped.

Going back to one’s roots is when ministry can be revived or die completely. The question, “Why will you go with me?” is a statement that says, “You cannot go where I am going, because I must go there alone.” The Saints asked them, “Why do you need me, when you have already been shown the way to God?”

When the Saints then asked, “Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands?” they had been reborn as Jesus Christ. God was their husband. The churches of Jesus Christ had then married the people. However, the death of the churches would not bring about a new Savior from one was a servant to God. The people could marry any number of philosophies and religions, but there would be no new churches in the name of Jesus Christ.

“Turn back, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have a husband” says that Apostles of Jesus Christ have now lasted two thousand years [give or take a decade]. That means the end of an Age has come [on the doorstep of the Age of Aquarius]. When the Saints then continued, “Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I should have a husband tonight and bear sons, would you then wait until they were grown?” The meaning was that a new sacrificial lamb would take centuries to develop a following [become Church relevant], at which time the new Age worship of science and knowledge would mean the rejection of faith-based religion.

The question, “Would you then refrain from marrying?” is then future looking. In an Age of handheld telephones-computers and the impatience of high-speed Internet and Wi-fi plugging all into the worldwide web of information, by satellites revolving in the heavens surrounding earth makes that question rhetorical. Therefore the answer was, “No, my daughters, it has been far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of the Lord has turned against me.” That says the “hand of the Lord” is the changing of the Ages. The Age of Technology has made Saints persona non grata.

The remainder of this reading says that the people of the West [more so in the United States than Canada, Central America or Western Europe] have refused to give up an ideal, even though they have nothing more than the hopes that come from belief. With their Roman Church dead [including all splinter groups that amount to the blind leading the blind and the Jewish-Christian synagogues] and only knowledge of Apostles and Saints to believe in, Christianity as a religion will still not die.

“Where you die, I will die— there will I be buried” is a statement of the mortality of all human beings. The funeral rites are recognized as a sacrament. Yet, it offers the potential of individual self-sacrifice of ego, to serve God.

“May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well” is a prayer that the end of Christianity will not come, but instead return to life. The hope is to be reborn as Jesus Christ.

“If even death parts me from you!” is a promise of commitment, as like a vow in marriage. It swears an oath to defend the memory of Saints, even is mortality takes the lives of the people away, having never known the glory of the Holy Spirit. It is a marriage promising, “Till death do us part.”

When we read that the Saints “saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her,” that indicates that nothing more could be said as the Word of God from “Beauty” was more than enough.

It is a fresh view of Ruth that tells the story in a light that only us today can see. It strips away all the antiquity and exposes Jesus Christ as the high priest from Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. Elimelech [“God Is King”] is the husband Christians must marry to become the tabernacle in which Jesus Christ can sacrifice our brains to save our souls. Ruth promises the “Beauty” of the mind-meld between Jesus and the scribe, when they both knew the foremost commandment was to love God with all one’s heart, all one’s soul, and all one’s strength. The message of Ruth exposed says we must marry a Church to express one’s commitment; but true commitment is shown when Jesus Christ stops being an icon in heaven and the churches have proven incapable of getting anyone into Heaven. Even looking to a Saint brings no reply. The story of Ruth says each soul is responsible for saving it from eternal damnation, by finding the way to righteousness through patient commitment (love of God) and prayerful sacrifice (the high priest within).

As an Old Testament optional reading selection for the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, when one’s own personal ministry for the LORD should be underway – one should see how one IS Ruth (regardless of one’s human gender) – the message here is to see beyond the stories told in the Holy Bible and see oneself. One is living in most obvious times of religious failure and denial of that fact is expressing how the Church of Jesus Christ is dead and we are all flickering flames of individual soul responsibility.

In this story of Ruth, Elimelech and Naomi left Judah with their two sons and went to Moab. I have presented that place as a generic for all Gentile nations on earth, which it is. Still, the root meaning of “Moab” says it either questions, “Who’s Your Daddy?” or “What’s Your Father?” or it is a statement of “Water Of A Father.” Regardless of the dispute over how “Moab” is interpreted, the certainty places focus on “Father,” which is God. As such, wherever “God Is King” would go, it was a flow [as “Water”] of the Father, through the Son. Without God [YHWH] there is no Christ, just as without Christ being reborn in Apostles there is no Church. Everything then becomes a ministry that searches for those who are famished and asks, “Who Is Your Father?”

By understanding the offspring of Jesus Christ and his Saints as the two churches that would promote the Emotion [Water is the element that symbolizes Emotions] of religion, it is easy to see how institutions are lifeless organizations that are recreations of the failures of Israel and Judah. One is “Sickly” and the other is “Wasting Away.” The same inability [impotence] to teach being filled with God’s Holy Spirit as the only way to serve God, being reborn as one Most Holy means none of the people making up those organizations serve God as true Priests. It is believing Jesus said, “Follow the leader,” when the death of such a leader can only cause all those behind in rank to fall down.

The ‘Big Picture’ that is present today includes the failures of Christian institutions past, just as this story tells of the deaths of Mahlon and Chilion. Christians today are the widowed wives of icons of weakness, although Communism and Islam have severed the head of Orpah, so the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church, Arab Christians, Jewish Christians and Armenians are persecuted and forgotten as was Eastern Europe after World War II. The “Beauty” of Christianity in Western Europe has been reduced to state-owned buildings that were once demanded by Rome to be built by the people. Christianity in Western Europe has become a tourist attraction; it is not where Saints are born.

We are all on our own, which is why I state each time I interpret these readings as it is when one’s own personal ministry for the LORD should be underway. The “Pleasantness of the Lord” has given the instructions to go back to when you came from and take with you whatever good that has been implanted in you by a church of Christianity. The laws of Moses might or might not be vogue in all lands, so it is up to each individual to be righteous without a true Church to assist.

What did your priest do on his or her summer vacation [or sabbatical]? Did he die on the cross for strangers, so a fill-in had to baptize your grandbaby? Why can’t priests give unto Caesar what is Caesr’s and focus on giving their souls to Yahweh, the rightful owner?

As can be seen, today’s churches have become soapboxes for liberalism and socialism, speaking for a Jesus Christ they never knew. The laws are rewritten to accommodate the sins of the present. We glorify politicians as if they were saints. So, as reflections of Moab, the question is “Who Is Your Father?”

It is impossible to worship two lords or masters. The United States of America, as Ruth, wants to cling to the concept of Saints; but the question is, “Who does she serve?”

We are trudging through the end of the Age of Pisces, ruthlessly – a word that is defined as: “Having no compassion or pity; merciless.” [American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition]

Once again it makes me laugh. “I wonder where Ruth is.”

Deuteronomy, Language, Teaching

Deuteronomy 6:1-9 – God commands for the purpose of fearing God will not be your god

January 15, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

Moses said: Now this is the commandment–the statutes and the ordinances–that the Lord your God charged me to teach you to observe in the land that you are about to cross into and occupy, so that you and your children and your children’s children, may fear the Lord your God all the days of your life, and keep all his decrees and his commandments that I am commanding you, so that your days may be long. Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe them diligently, so that it may go well with you, and so that you may multiply greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has promised you.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead, and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

———————————————————————————————————-

This is an optional Old Testament selection from the Episcopal Lectionary for the Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, Year B 2018. In the numbering system that lists each Sunday in an ordinal fashion, this Sunday is referred to as Proper 26. If chosen, it will next be read aloud in an Episcopal church by a reader on Sunday November 4, 2018. It is important because it is identified by Jesus as the first of all commandments, when one of the Temple scribes asked him to answer that question. As the part A of a two-part answer, from which all of the other commandments stem, the faithful will love God with all their hearts, all their souls, and all their strength. That love of God is then what brings God’s love upon one in return, via the Holy Spirit.

This alternate Old Testament reading choice is based on the Gospel reading from Mark 12. I have prepared an analysis of Mark 12:28-34, which offers an opinion on verses four through nine here. I recommend reading that article, as I will not take time to rehash that in this writing. I will offer some opinions on the first three verses.

In verse one, where we read, “Now this is the commandment–the statutes and the ordinances–that the Lord your God charged me to teach you to observe in the land that you are about to cross into and occupy,” there are two important aspects to grasp. One, Deuteronomy 5 restates the Ten Commandments and tells of Moses speaking for God to the Israelites. As such, verse one refers back to the prior chapter, of instructions that God had commanded through Moses. Second, the singular number spoken – “the commandment” [from “ham·miṣ·wāh”] – is both all that was spoken in chapter 5 AND that about to follow, as the singular Word of God. Everything Moses spoke (and thus recorded in writing) “—the statutes and the ordinances—“ was God’s commandment.

Verse two beings by stating [appearing later in the above paraphrase], “Purpose you may fear Yahweh your god,” where “Yahweheloheka” is written. The “purpose” for God’s commandment is to fear Yahweh, who must be “your god” (from “elohim,” meaning “gods”), collectively and individually.

This is a commandment that the LORD IS GOD, the only God of Israel, and He has given Commandments, statutes and ordinances that demand compliance or all will be lost. Fear of breaking the commandment should then make each and every Israelite make the LORD become your gods. Anyone who does not have this fear of God will not comply with “the commandment –the statutes and the ordinances” and will start walking around wearing a Big Head, thinking one is him or herself a god.

Moses, then speaking for God and himself said, “I command you” to keep all the statutes and commandments, not only alone, but to teach one’s children (“son”) and grandchildren (“grandson”) to keep them. This was based on oneself having a fear of God; but to teach one’s family was not motivated by a fear of God. It was motivated by love of God, such that the greatest fear of God was not from Him punishing those who broke His commandments, but from losing God in one’s life. One’s greatest fear was that one’s actions would disallow one from God’s love.

This aspect of one’s love of God is then that of a devoted wife (regardless of human gender), who has loved God and been loved by God in return. There has been a commitment made between the two. The commitment is spelled out in the marriage contract that is the commandments of God. Still, that loving relationship has led to offspring (“ū·ḇin·ḵā” – “your son”) and [after forty years in the wilderness, a second generation] then further offspring (“ū·ḇen- bin·ḵā” – “your grandson”).

This is then the marriage contract taught within family, out of love of God and bloodline being born of God’s love. It is the wife also becoming one with the Father, so that parents [both wives of the Lord] love their children in a Father–Son manner, with a commandment being for all to “honor your father and mother,” where “honor” means to continue the bloodline and the love of God.

This is why verse three says “that it may be well with you that you may multiply greatly.” The word stating, “it may be well” is “yî·ṭaḇ,” which is rooted in “yatab,” meaning, “to be good, well, glad, or pleasing.” This then states the power of love in the production of offspring.

These three verses are then stating that living up to the commandments of God demand love. That love puts one in touch with God individually and deeply, so each of the Israelites felt the love of God born in them. Through the teachings of the commandments, carried on by loving parents and grandparents, each soul felt the wonders and powers of their God.

That love from God was so special, no one ever wanted to not love God completely. Still, the thought of losing God’s love – as a divorce that was justified by cheating on God, through serving another [even self] –was the fear of God each had to rely on, should any doubts or trials enter into one’s mundane life.

As an optional Old Testament reading selection for the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, when one’s own personal ministry for the LORD should be underway – one fears God and fears losing God’s love – the message here is to follow the most important commandment(s) – love God completely and then love your neighbors [extended families, all related by blood with the Father] as yourself. Love of God is what places God’s love in one’s heart, where all the commandments are written.

This modern world (which began developing long ago [see Ruth 1]) has ceased being led by hearts that love God. The brain has become “your gods” that keep all from loving God totally. This pretense of self as god then prevents most from being able to recognize our “neighbors,” so we can love them too.

We have become followers of dogma, with empty souls standing among us who preach, “Jesus would love foreigners (or sinners, or non-family, or those who have never loved God totally),” as if they have been given a piece of sheepskin that proclaims “Authority on Jesus Christ.” They have no fear of losing God’s love, because they think the way to God’s heart is through His Son. As such, they love the ideal of Jesus Christ, but always speak of him in the third person, never as the Son having been reborn.

If they did, they would preach, “I love all foreigners,” speaking as one filled with God’s Holy Spirit, as Apostle-Saint reborn to the world as Jesus Christ. Since Jesus only spoke the truth of the Father, such bold claims would be known to be lies. Jesus of Nazareth never promoted all Jews love all Romans and welcome them into the land once known as the Promise Land. Jesus actually said, “I come only for the children of Israel,” which rejected those who were not commanded to love God totally, loving others of the same God as themselves (who loved God totally).

Instead, those reborn as Jesus Christ today should open their mouths only when teaching their family the Law. Rather than venom being spewed on people – fellow Christians who also say they love Jesus Christ, but do not love foreigners or those Christians that speak lies – one reborn as Jesus Christ would say, “Bring me the children.”

Priests of Yahweh would stand with smiles on their faces, saying, “I love God. I teach you to love God with everything within you, because losing the love of God turns one into a worshiper of self-ego.” They would then add, “Loving God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength means wherever one is then so too is God. There is no need to roam the world for a nice place to love God.”

There is a silent movement in the United States to mix the blood of a Christian [albeit misled] society with those of different blood, different ideologies, and different gods [if any]. This long-term plan has been promoted through the propaganda of network television and national advertisements (and still is).

The more people watch such false familial projections, the more [especially in the children] they begin to think “I should be like that.”

That program’s success is based on the breakdown of the historic family units, where love is the common bond, so it can be replaced by confusion about how a modern family should act. It will not be taught to obey the commandments of God and to love Him completely.

The concept of love in today’s world has been reduced to physical delights and material pleasures.

The wellness, the goodness, the gladness, and the pleasing nature of oneness with God, so it spreads to one’s family and to one’s neighbors, who are all married to Yahweh has been perverted. Love has been changed into a physical lust of the brain, in unnatural ways that the heart cannot bear. The love of God becomes a desire for worldly things and relationships are from Big Brain planning, which demands a hardened heart to accept. There is no longer a fear of God because all sense of love towards God has been mutated, if not stripped bare.

Last night I watched a clip of an interview between a cable news talking head and a comedian and his producer. They were promoting an upcoming movie that questioned, “When did America lose its sense of humor?” The comedian was saying that comedy has always been left of center, but it had been presented in a way that could easily be laughed at.

Chevy Chase mocking President Ford in 1975.

He said that now, comedy has become propaganda of hatred. It is not funny. It is an outright attack on those of conservative values, such that one has to immediately defend oneself (needlessly), saying why one is not a racist, one is not a homophobe, one is not a terrorist, or one is not an abuser of women, simply because the left [liberals against conservative and retaining standard social values] has caricatured values that have always been based on love as now being evil.

The producer friend of the comedian said (I paraphrase), “I am a religious man. I was raised to be religious and to fear only God. However, I have told friends that there is significantly more fear of the extreme left in this country, than there is fear of God.”

Amen to that brother.

Fear of God means to love God with one’s whole being. It means to know God in one’s heart. One’s mind will then be led by God’s love in one’s heart. When that love is present, then all the blurred parameters of who one should love and who one should hate disappear.

Just as God is love, He is the absence of hate. When one is in union with God, then one becomes God’s love.

In a world that is filled with hatred, one must be led by God’s love to avoid direct conflict with those who serve other gods and are filled with hate. One loves one’s enemy by letting that enemy hate him or her, without that hatred getting in the way of God’s love. [“Get behind me Satan.”]

The love of God is then between those in one’s bloodline family that also loves God completely, and those other families [neighbors] whose blood is also born of the love of God. God said (through Moses), “[Maintaining the commandment of God is] so that you may multiply greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has promised you.” That meant, when one land is divided into twelve parts, each part will be neighbors, just as the parts of one’s body makes a whole. To love one’s neighbors as oneself is then akin to saying, “Love your hand as you love your foot, because all parts are connected to one who loves God, and who God loves in return.”

One fears God by refusing to vouch for those whose criminal acts [against God’s commandments] are defended by non-believers who blaspheme the Son of God as a lover of evil. One has to fear losing God’s love more than one fears being outcast and persecuted for not getting with the blended family program.

Language, Ruth, Teaching

Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17 – Marrying God and having His baby

January 1, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

Naomi her mother-in-law said to Ruth, “My daughter, I need to seek some security for you, so that it may be well with you. Now here is our kinsman Boaz, with whose young women you have been working. See, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. Now wash and anoint yourself, and put on your best clothes and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, observe the place where he lies; then, go and uncover his feet and lie down; and he will tell you what to do.” She said to her, “All that you tell me I will do.”

So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When they came together, Yahweh made her conceive, and she bore a son. Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be Yahweh, who has not left you this day without next-of-kin; and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.” Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse. The women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed; he became the father of Jesse, the father of David.

——————–

This is the Track 1 Old Testament selection that will be rad aloud on the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost [Proper 27], Year B, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. If an individual church is marked for the Track 1 course, then this reading will be accompanied by a singing of Psalm 127, which says, “Children are a heritage from Yahweh, and the fruit of the womb is a gift.” This pair will precede a reading from Hebrews, where Paul wrote, “he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.” All will accompany the Gospel reading from Mark, where Jesus taught, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets!”

I wrote of this selection from two chapters in Ruth when it last came up in the lectionary schedule (2018). I posted my views on my website then, which can now be read on this website, by searching this site. Rather than repeat what I wrote three years ago, I will add new observations, including some that make this reading fit into the theme of the other reading also chosen by church elders to be read on this Sunday. Please feel free to read this commentary, the one from 2018, and all the others that are written for this same Sunday and let me know what you think.

In this split selection of readings from Ruth’s chapter three and four, it can be easy to misconstrue Naomi telling Ruth to go seduce Boaz after work, which then leads to her getting pregnant. This is a wrong conclusion to draw, as the text of the ‘in between’ story makes it clear that Boaz is a brother of Naomi’s deceased husband, Elimelech, thus much older than Ruth. Indeed, when Naomi told Ruth, “our kinsman Boaz, with whose young women you have been working,” those young women were virgin daughters of Boaz, so all the “young women,” including Ruth, were seen by Boaz and Naomi as children, not yet married.

Because Ruth had been the wife of Naomi’s son Mahlon, she was not a virgin. Because Mahlon died without having impregnated Ruth, Naomi freed Ruth and Orpah to seek other husbands who would supply for their needs in a male-dominated world, herself unable to guarantee such support with her husband and two sons then dead. Ruth clung to Naomi, because of Naomi’s spiritual marriage to Yahweh, which Ruth felt strongly pulled to have her soul serve also. Naomi and Ruth had been in Moab, seeking land that could afford life during famine, because Naomi’s husband, Elimelech, had sold his land in Judah. He sold what he possessed there because he felt a need to leave a land that was no longer supplying food (including spiritual food). Without property, without male heirs to support Naomi, Ruth became her daughter as the two returned to the Bethlehem area, where Elimelech had family still living.

The element of working the fields to harvest grain (barley) says the famine is past or at least rain had returned and the land was producing food. This becomes an indication that Israel, which had been in a spiritual drought, had been in times when led by judges, when a judge was in need but not present. The past famine now over says their wayward ways had been corrected.

Here, again, the names of Ruth’s first chapter are important. There Elimelech was named and is again mentioned [not in this reading], meaning it is important to recall that name means “My God Is King.” That name says Elimelech could no longer live in Judah, selling everything he owned and moving to Moab, because of the wicked ways. In Moab he died. This must be seen as symbolic of Moses and the Covenant [who died and was buried in Moab], where all Israelites were expected to have their souls each be married to Yahweh. When times suffered, this said the commitment to that marriage agreement was not being met. Thus, with the fields again producing grain, physical food reflects the spiritual food of souls returning to honor their marriage agreement.

As the brother of Elimelech, the name “Boaz” means “In Strength, By Strength,” with the Temple of Jerusalem’s left pillar also called “Boaz.” Strong’s alludes to this, as well as saying the word “boaz” means “quickness.” The pillar to the right [both free-standing and not supporting any structure above] was called “Jachin,” which means “He Establishes, He Will Give Certainty,” with “He” referencing “God” [as “Yah”]. This implies that Boaz was a pillar of strength upon which the return of commitment to Yahweh is symbolized. As the brother of “My God Is King,” Boaz was then the kinsman to whom Judah and Bethlehem relied.

When this broad-stroke meaning from the metaphor is seen, an arranged marriage between Ruth (a Moabite woman, not an Israelite) to Boaz (the elder revitalizing commitment to Yahweh), with Ruth realized to be the welcomed adoptee of Naomi (an Israelite soul married to Yahweh), the story develops as a new branch being spliced unto the tree of Israel. The symbolism of the marriage between Boaz and Ruth needs to be viewed as that renewal of the spirit of commitment to Yahweh. Ruth would be the new blood that desired to be one with Yahweh, who would merge with the old blood of those descended as chosen – marrying the dulled with responsibility to the sharpness of desire to please God, with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. It is that union that beget the grandfather of David (Obed).

The name “Obed” means “Servant, Slave.” This must be seen as a name given out of love and admiration for Yahweh. For Naomi to take this child to her bosom and become its nurse (at an old age, beyond that of a wet nurse), she was nurturing Obed to love servitude to Yahweh. From that nurtured love, Jesse and David would come. The name “Jesse” means both “My Husband” and “Yah Exists.” Here again is a name restating the Israelite commitment to Yahweh in divine marriage – soul to Spirit. The name “David” means both “Beloved” and “Weak, Flowing,” where this restates the total commitment to Yahweh through love, with a willingness to go with Yahweh’s flow of direction, letting Yahweh be one’s strength.

In the place where Naomi told Ruth what to do after Boaz ate and drank and laid down to sleep, the Hebrew words [transliterated] “wə·ḡil·lîṯ mar·gə·lō·ṯāw” [from the roots “galah” and “margeloth”] are translated as “uncover his feet.” This is perplexing as to what it means. In the text not read aloud, from Ruth 3, is said that Boaz awoke at midnight and found “there was a woman lying at his feet.” Possibly the words were indicating that Ruth should disrobe (“uncover) and then lie at “his feet.” This would then be both a sign of willingness to submit oneself into one’s service (laying at the feet), while also offering oneself physically in marriage. Boaz thanked Ruth for choosing him, rather than someone else, either poor (youthful passion) or rich (gold-digging). Regardless, there was no sex on the threshing room floor. Boaz told Ruth what needed to happen for the two to marry legally; and, he sent her back to Naomi with an allotment of grain. The meeting promised that Boaz would become the kinsman-redeemer [“gō·’êl”]; but when Ruth told this to Naomi, Naomi said, “We need to wait and see.” That attitude says Naomi had left Bethlehem with her husband and sons because in the times of judges many Israelites said things that were not backed by the truth. She did not distrust Boaz, but the other relative who Naomi knew had to approve Boaz as the kinsman-redeemer.

The jump forward to chapter four then has everything done as planned, with Yahweh guiding the marriage of the two souls that were both married to Yahweh. The land was again restored. Still, when a generation is twenty years, the two generations that would be Obed and Jesse (leading to the generation of David) would amount to forty years, this timing says the cycle of forty years in servitude to the Covenant had ended. That would be followed by forty years of spiritual famine, which coincided with the time David would be born, when the elders of Israel would go to their aging judge – Samuel – and tell him to appoint them a king, to be like other nations. That would make David the final judge of Israel, which makes this marriage between Boaz and Ruth significant to understand.

When this cycle of up and down is seen as continuous, the happiness of Ruth’s marriage saving Naomi and Judah is shown to then collapse in the times of Elijah, who was a prophet of the Northern Kingdom. Rather than be a judge, David had ceased those times. Elijah was a soul married to Yahweh who became a powerful voice of Yahweh on earth. The Track 2 Old Testament reading then tells of Elijah during a time of famine, when Yahweh sent him to Zarephath to be provided for by an old widow. The widow was preparing the last supper for herself and her son, after which they both prepared to die. That becomes a parallel of Naomi and Ruth, as they clung to one another during a time of famine in Judah. The miracle of Elijah should then be seen as a reflection of the miracle of Boaz marrying Ruth, having a son, who restored Naomi from worthless widow to a woman surrounded by the wealth of Yahweh’s love.

In the Hebrews reading, Paul writes that mortals only die once, so Jesus was “offered once to bear the sins of many.” This simply says Jesus was mortal, so he too only could die once. However, his one-time death released a pure soul that could return and fill many souls animating bodies of flesh, who also could only die once. Being possessed by the soul of Jesus would mean the sins of the many would not condemn them, once possessed and led to a righteous state of being. This means the soul of Jesus would become like baby Obed, who Yahweh would send to marry the souls of His wives and make them pure before that one death.

Naomi was married to Yahweh., Ruth marrying Boaz married her soul to Yahweh, so she gave birth to her own baby Jesus, meaning her past sins were erased and she would sin no more. When Paul said Jesus “will appear a second time,” that “second time” occurs many times, each as a second birth in the souls of those married to Yahweh.

Christians have to get beyond thinking ‘belief’ in Jesus as the Son of God will save them, because Jesus died on a cross for them to be saved. That is the fault of Israel obeying the Covenant for forty years, and then straying and breaking all the agreements the next forty. Belief in God does not work for long. One’s soul must marry YAHWEH and be made forgiven of all past sins. Then one’s soul needs to give rebirth to the resurrected soul of Jesus, so that high priest will keep one’s soul from sinning ever again.

Finally, the Gospel reading from Mark places focus on a widow woman. Both Naomi and Ruth were widows. Neither of them had any possessions or any rights. They were, in essence, beggars. They were the poor who could demand alms and the outer fringes of crops (when no famines were around). In the Elijah miracle of First Kings a widow woman and her son were about to die, because they had nothing. Jesus warned about the scribes, who preyed on widows.

That never goes out of style. Every church organization today makes guilt calls on old ladies with some form of security, reminding them to give to the church when they die. None of those berobed hired hands care about the souls of anyone. All they care about is taking from the poor and giving to themselves. This means the story of Ruth is like the time of celebration Job experienced, after he defeated the tests of Satan. Satan always comes looking like a priest, never as the wolf clothed robes.

As the Old Testament reading to be read aloud on the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, when one’s own personal ministry for Yahweh should already be well underway, the lesson to grasp is to marry Yahweh (as Ruth did Boaz) and then let Yahweh make one conceive and bear his Son Jesus. This is not having a baby with a husband, as if only women can marry Yahweh. Everything is spiritual, with nothing physical (other than servitude and ministry).
Likewise, there is no Jesus salvation without one’s soul marrying Yahweh OUT OF TRUE LOVE.

The message of Ruth chapter three is listen to your soul telling you how to get Yahweh to marry you. Expose your sins to Him in sincere confession and then lay your soul at His feet, in complete and willing submission to His Will. Let Yahweh reward you with a few pounds of spiritual food to chew on, while He watches to see what you do next. Then, follow go with the flow, with complete faith that Yahweh’s hand will be guiding one’s life. When Yahweh calls your soul to the marriage altar, then say, “I do.” Then, let baby Jesus be reborn within your soul, as your new high priest.

1 Kings, Language, Teaching

1 Kings 17:8-16 One last handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug

January 1, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

The word of Yahweh came to Elijah, saying, “Go now to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and live there; for I have commanded a widow there to feed you.” So he set out and went to Zarephath. When he came to the gate of the town, a widow was there gathering sticks; he called to her and said, “Bring me a little water in a vessel, so that I may drink.” As she was going to bring it, he called to her and said, “Bring me a morsel of bread in your hand.” But she said, “As Yahweh eloheka lives, I have nothing baked, only a handful of meal in a jar, and a little oil in a jug; I am now gathering a couple of sticks, so that I may go home and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it, and die.” Elijah said to her, “Do not be afraid; go and do as you have said; but first make me a little cake of it and bring it to me, and afterwards make something for yourself and your son. For thus says Yahweh elohe of Israel: The jar of meal will not be emptied and the jug of oil will not fail until the day that sends [the gift of] rain on the earth.” She went and did as Elijah said, so that she as well as he and her household ate for many days. The jar of meal was not emptied, neither did the jug of oil fail, according to the word of Yahweh that he spoke by Elijah.

——————–

This is the Track 2 Old Testament reading selection for churches set upon that path, to be read aloud on the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost [Proper 27], Year B, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. If this path is taken, then Psalm 146 will be sung as a companion, saying, “[Yahweh will be] Who gives justice to those who are oppressed, and food to those who hunger.” This pairing will precede a reading from Hebrews, where Paul wrote: “And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” All will accompany the Gospel reading from Mark, where it is written: “A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then [Jesus] called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury.”

I wrote about this reading selection the last time it came up in the lectionary cycle (2018). If you would care to read those observations, they can be viewed by searching this site. Because I offered many valid opinions on the meaning of this reading, I will not attempt to reproduce what has already been written. Feel free to read that commentary, as well as the many other commentaries I offer, and comment as you see fit. Today, I will address this reading from a slightly different angle.

In 2018, I was not concerned with the routine mistranslation of the Hebrew into English, as I was then like most Christians (then and still today), putting complete faith in the English translations that many different versions of the Holy Bible are published in. I am reminded of an old episode of Gunsmoke, where Marshall Dillon and his sidekick Festus were stuck in the wilderness, expecting to die soon. Matt said it would be nice to read something from the Bible at that time. Festus told him he had a Bible. Matt said, “I didn’t know you could read.” Festus said he could not read, but liked carrying a Bible with him. Matt told Festus to get him his copy of the Bible; and, Festus gives Matt a copy of Little Women. Matt looked at it and asked Festus if someone told him that was a Bible; and, Festus said, “Yessir. He said that was a good book.”

I mention this because Christians are just as illiterate as Festus, full of beliefs that are based on what someone told them to believe. They cannot read for themselves. They do not speak Hebrew or Greek, and they do not seek to learn to read at such a late stage in their lives; so, they bow down and give all honor and praise to someone who is only in the Bible business to make a buck. They will gladly say what the people want to hear, for a profit. The name of Yahweh is “Yahweh” [“יְהוָ֖ה”] and all Old Testament Scripture states that plain as day. However, translators change that to “the Lord,” which is wrong.

In verse one of this chapter, we read of “Elijah the Tishbite” telling Ahab (the King of Israel, the Northern Kingdom) that “Yahweh elohe Israel” would not let rain fall until Elijah said it was time. Ahab was married to the foreigner Jezebel, who imported all kinds of evil prophets of Ba’al. Ba’al was “the lord” of Jezebel, and thus Ahab. Thus, from that history of Israel and from the mouth of a true prophet, anyone who likes to rely on the words of false prophets and call Yahweh “the Lord” will have no rain of insight fall upon their souls. In my version of the reading selection today, you will note where I restored “Yahweh” in bold text. This corrects the wrong.

This correction need mirrors the mistranslations commonly presented for forms of “elohim” – a word that is clearly the plural Hebrew for “el,” meaning “gods.” Translation services make all the Festus-like ‘Christians’ of the world bow down and worship lower-case “gods” as “God.” This, again, is the false religions of polytheism, which Jezebel loved so much. The use of “elohim” is a statement of humans possessed by spirits or the Spirit, as enslaved mutations or elevated creations of souls. Elijah was one of Yahweh’s elohim, as an extension of Yahweh in the flesh, as a true prophet. His soul was married to Yahweh, meaning Yahweh’s Spirit possessed the soul of Elijah. An elohim written in association with the name “Yahweh” means all who serve Yahweh as His angels in the flesh – His hands on the earth. Only a “Yahweh elohim Israel” has the power to decide when rain will fall. That means it is important to open your eyes and read the truth, or be misled.

When we read that Yahweh sent Elijah to Zarephath, a place of Sidon, the name “Zarephath” means “Blast Furnace, Workshop For Smelting And Refining Metals.” The name “Sidon” means “Fishery, Hunting Place.” These two places are capitalized, meaning they bear a divinely elevated meaning that goes beyond the names of two places. This elevation comes forth from realizing the meanings of the words chosen to be the names of places.

This should be realized as being geographically along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, where fishing would have been a source of plentiful food for the people. As a seaport, Zarephath would have been where ores were shipped, in order to be refined. For Yahweh to send His prophet to a region outside Israel [Assyrian controlled] and find Israelites living there suffering from the same famine from a lack of rain, this says the lack of rain or drought was wherever Israelites lived. This makes the lack of rain controlled by Elijah be more than physical rain from the sky, but also a drought in the spirituality of faith. That lack was caused by those who allowed Ahab and Jezebel to govern their commitments to Yahweh. To send Elijah to a mining-smelting town means he was sent to where people suffered to make valuable metals for kings and queens. The elevation becomes a statement of labors [worshiping] for valuables taken from the earth, not worshiping values obtained from the ethereal.

Elijah was told that a widow woman would provide for Elijah, as commanded by Yahweh. That says the widow, like Naomi, was a soul married to Yahweh and would do everything Yahweh ordered. Elijah heard that and his belief in Yahweh speaking the truth led him to ask the widow woman for a cup of water first. That request was a test if the woman he met was the one who would provide for him. After asking the widow woman to get him water to drink, she went to draw Elijah water; so, Elijah then further tested her as the one, asking for a morsel of bread. Water and bread are then metaphor for an everlasting soul married to Yahweh (cup of water) and a word of truth from the inner guide (a morsel of bread). The test was for spiritual proof, not material means. The widow woman provided Elijah with what he asked for.

When the widow woman said to Elijah, after he requested a morsel of bread, “as lives Yahweh to whom you are one of His elohim [the truth of “eloheka”] I do not have any bread,” that expressed how her soul knew Elijah was a soul married to Yahweh. One must realize that she had never met Elijah before. There was no social media or television to promote Elijah as some celebrity televangelist, who she recognized. Her soul was also married to Yahweh, as was Naomi’s, so she knew who Elijah was through divine inspiration. Her soul sensed that another like her, albeit one more elevated in devotion to Yahweh than she, was in her presence.

This must take one back [if one has been following these lessons I offer, through this Ordinary season after Pentecost] to the story of Elijah “falling asleep under a broom tree.” I said then that Elijah died and was reborn as a most divine Son of Yahweh on earth, which would allow his body to later ascend without seeming to physically die. It was after this transformation of Elijah that Scripture calls him “Elijah the Tishbite.” Elijah has yet to die, as this story is soon after he is introduced in Scripture. His introduction also identifies him as a “Tishbite.” The name “Tishbite” means “Returnee.” Thus, the widow woman was one preparing to become like Elijah and lie down preparing for physical death, before being released as was Elijah’s soul. Elijah’s soul, having returned to be with Yahweh while still in living flesh (à la Jesus’ resurrection), was sent to this servant of Yahweh to save her and her son, reviving the spirit of Israel in the true faithful. Elijah was sent to bring the rain of Yahweh.

When the widow woman said all she had was a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug, showing that she had gathered two sticks to burn in the oven for their last supper for her and her son, Elijah told her to have no fear. That was a command from Yahweh, telling the soul of the widow that Yahweh was there. As a wife to Yahweh, her only fear should be losing Yahweh. Elijah assured her that Yahweh was there; so, Elijah told her to make him a cake. He assured her it would feed him and her and her son.

This is where a translation that says, “For thus says the Lord God of Israel” is meaningless. Where does “the Lord God of Israel” say, “The jar of meal will not be emptied and the jug of oil will not fail until the day that the Lord sends rain on the earth,” anywhere other than here in First Kings seventeen? Nowhere!!! This is because Elijah said those words, as “Yahweh’s angel in the flesh [“elohe”] who was “One Who Retains Yahweh as one of His elohim” [the meaning of “Israel”]. That identified Elijah the Returnee making that promise, as a servant of Yahweh [an “elohe“]. It is the same as Jesus telling his disciples to feed well over five thousand people (including women and children) with five loaves of bread and two fish. Only Yahweh elohim can make miracles happen. The “jar of flour and the jug of oil will not fail” as they will continue to feed spiritual food and anoint His wives as messiahs [Anointed ones], until the rain of salvation comes.

This is the promise made by Yahweh to all His servants (divine wives). Naomi and Ruth were the equivalent of the widow and her son, as all they had in this world was Yahweh. They trusted in Yahweh and were not afraid of death. Yahweh spoke to them all and told them He would provide, so they could provide.

When Paul wrote that “Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands,” so many Christians read those words and think they say, “Jesus did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands.” The Greek word “Christos” means “Anointed one,” which is a soul that has the Spirit of Yahweh poured out upon it, forever, like Yahweh “Anointed” David’s soul. Paul wrote his words meaning Jesus the Tishbite did not enter a sanctuary “made by human hands.” Elijah was like Jesus Christ, as Elijah Christ. The sanctuary Elijah entered was the soul of the widow woman and her son. The spiritual food of Yahweh was raining down upon them, Anointing them as His beloveds.

That eternal presence is what so many Christians today lack. Christianity is suffering from a spiritual famine, due to a drought of heavenly rains. Jesus the Returnee would be sent to the United States of America, where it has so many hunting and fishing for precious metals (even the printed on paper ‘ores’), so they can heat everything up to make molten images of the gods they love to call “my Lord.” Where are the widows who live only on the presence of Yahweh within … when no Christians these days are taught the name Yahweh, much less how to call upon Him in divine marriage? America today is filled with fears, having strayed so far from Yahweh they cannot possible conceive how to fear losing the One God none have been raised to know personally.

In the accompanying Gospel reading from Mark, Jesus warned his disciples, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.” That must be seen as a perfect fit for all the popes, bishops, and priests that love pretending they have some inside skinny on what Jesus would say, if Jesus were here today. If they had that, then there would be no spiritual drought leading the Western world to ruin and destruction!

The lesson is Jesus should be here today, in those who are truly Anointed ones – the Christs of Yahweh – all who have become the resurrections of Jesus within their own souls – a most holy possession. Jesus should be here as the high priest in all who proclaim to be Christians.

But, he is not. Those who profess to be Christian ‘scribes’ are liars. They are false shepherds. They are the drought upon the land, because the people look to them for spiritual feeding [that does not come]. They are the cause of the spiritual famine, because they are the Ahabs and Jezebels who seek to destroy Elijah the Tishbite. Their later ancestors, Christian predecessors, would nail Jesus to a cross, thinking that act had killed him. However, Yahweh cannot be killed.

The reading of this Track 2 Old Testament selection on the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, when one’s own personal ministry for Yahweh should already be well underway, presents a lesson that says there are true Christians in the world who are suffering. They are preparing to leave this world and let it have itself to destroy all that is good in true Christianity. When the last true Christians leave, those left behind will be condemned prisoners of earth – souls destined to reincarnate over and over, until the world is no longer an inhabitable environment. Then, all hell is let loose upon the wayward souls. Now represents the last times to be sent by Yahweh to save others whose souls are married to Yahweh. The question is, “Are there any who will hear the voice of Yahweh and say, “Here I am. Send me.”’

Hebrews, Language, Teaching

Hebrews 9:24-28 – The Anointment of Jesus will appear a second time

January 1, 2026 R. T. Tippett Leave a comment

Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

——————–

This is the Epistle selection that will be read aloud on the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost [Proper 27], Year B, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. It will follow one of two pairings of Old Testament and Psalm readings, either the Track 1 or Track 2 sets. Depending on which path an individual church is set on, Track 1 will offer a reading from Ruth, which includes: “So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When they came together, Yahweh made her conceive, and she bore a son.” That is accompanied by Psalm 127, which sings: “Children are a heritage from Yahweh, and the fruit of the womb is a gift.” Track 2 will offer a reading from First Kings, where is written: “For thus says Yahweh elohe of Israel: The jar of meal will not be emptied and the jug of oil will not fail until the day that Yahweh sends rain on the earth.” Psalm 146 will then be sung, which includes: “Yahweh loves the righteous; Yahweh cares for the stranger; he sustains the orphan and widow, but frustrates the way of the wicked.” All will accompany the Gospel reading from Mark, where it is written: “[Jesus said of the scribes] They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

I wrote deeply about these five verses the last time it came up in the lectionary cycle (2018) and posted by observations on my website at that time. That commentary can be viewed by searching this site. I will not repeat that detail now today, as it makes it clear that these five verses have been poorly translated; so, the truth contained in what Paul actually wrote is hidden from view by translation.

This is now the sixth Sunday that readings have been scheduled to come from the Book of Hebrews. If one has followed these postings since then, then one will recall how I explained Jews do not consider themselves “Hebrews,” because Hebrew is a language, not the name of a peoples. I stated then that the insight came to me that Paul (being himself a Jew) would have known that. Instead of addressing his book to “Hebrews,” without stating his name as the author, it makes sense that he wrote letters in Hebrew, which were sent to his friends in Rome, who understood Hebrew and divine language (as Saints). It would then be from texts in Hebrew that someone else would translate the Hebrew into Greek, producing this work called “Hebrews.” Because that author of the Greek (divinely inspired) would translate the words in a style different from Paul’s use of Greek, questions would arise about who the true author was. This is an example of how translations modify what was originally stated; and, although all is divinely inspired, Yahweh hides His truth so only the true seekers will be fully enlightened by that truth.

In verse twenty-four the Greek word written is “ἁγία,” which transliterates to “hagia,” which is “inflection of ἅγιος (hágios), in the feminine.” The word means: 1.) devoted to the gods; 2.) of things: sacred, holy; 3.) of people: holy, pious, pure; 4.) accursed.” This word in Greek would have been written in Hebrew as some form of “קָדוֹשׁ,” transliterated as “qadosh,” meaning: “sacred, holy, consecrated, saint.” The NRSV has translated this word as “sanctuary.” That is an opinion of a translator’s powers of interpretation, which means one can bow down and worship a translator as perfect and almighty; or, one can take what is offered by a translator and look beyond what that service provides – seeing that as a generality of something written.

To repeat, I wrote deeply about what Paul wrote, which translators transforming Greek into English cannot show. The translators are forced to produce paraphrases that meet their preconceptions of how these words should fit together in a meaningful way, when they are completely ignorant to the truth. They produce translations that follows the syntax of Greek, translated into English. That would work for a non-divinely inspired writing; but the rules followed by translators are not able to translate the language of Yahweh [speaking in tongues] according to the syntax of either Greek or English, because the words written originally follow a divine syntax, which is automatically rejected as one recognized by translators. In my 2018 analysis, I presented a more accurate presentation of what Paul wrote, if his Hebrew had been divinely translated into Greek by one inspired by Yahweh.

In this short reading selection from Hebrew 9, Paul wrote of “Christ,” twice. In verses twenty-four and twenty-eight, the word “Christos” is written, both times the capitalization elevates the word (which simply means “anointed”) to a divine level of “Anointment.” While it is very easy to read the words of Paul and intuit his writing “Christ” as meaning Jesus – as if Jesus’ last name was “Christ” – the reality is seen in the story of David’s “Anointment.” There, David was “anointed” by the hands of Samuel, when he oil poured over his head [“mashach”]. That was his anointment to become king (or judge) of Israel. At the same time Yahweh poured out His Spirit on David’s soul [“Mashach”]. That “Anointment” gave young David the powers of Yahweh at his disposal, because young David fully submitted his soul to Yahweh in divine marriage. This is the pure meaning of what Paul wrote in Hebrews 9. Yahweh pours out His Spirit on ALL He chooses to “Anoint,” or make a “Christ.”

When that is realized, then the “sanctuary” or those who are made “sacred” by Yahweh, have been made “sacred ones” by the hand of Yahweh, not human priests. David was anointed by human hands, when Samuel poured physical oil on his head. In the same way, all priests of church organizations are physically ordained to serve that church organization. Only when one’s soul is “Anointed” by Yahweh is one truly “sacred” or “set apart as holy by God.” Those then become divine “reproductions” or “copies” of Jesus, because his soul only resurrects within the individual souls of those married spiritually to Yahweh. That soul of Jesus is the “genuine” presence of Jesus reborn into one who is also deemed a “Christ” by Yahweh. This presence within a wife of Yahweh – a servant fully in submission to His Will, through total love – makes that soul “heavenly” [from “ouranon“], as where both Yahweh and Jesus abide.

When one, such as Paul and all other Apostles and Saints, have this heavenly presence “appear” in “themselves” [where a “self” equates to a “soul”], they become the hands of “God” (“Theos”) on earth. They become Jesus reborn in different flesh, as the same soul resurrected over and over again. In the name of Jesus means being in the name of Yahweh, as the name “Jesus” means “Yah[weh] Saves.” This is the truth of “Christianity,” such that ALL are reborn as Jesus, ALL equally a “Christ.” The soul of Jesus is then merged with the souls and bodies of each who has sacrificed self, in submission to Yahweh; so, one’s physical “blood” then becomes the “blood of Jesus,” just as it becomes the “blood of a Christ.”

When it is known that all human beings are mortal, thereby known to die once, Paul was stating a fact of human life. Because Jesus was a soul placed by Yahweh into human flesh (born of a woman in Bethlehem), that flesh was known to only “die once,” at which time the soul of Jesus would be released, in the same way all souls are released at death. Souls not saved via marriage to Yahweh will return through reincarnation … after those souls have a chat with Yahweh. Because the soul of Jesus is pure, it serve Yahweh (as His right hand el), to be used by Yahweh to send into all others He deems a Christ. Because those bodies of flesh will likewise only die once, they must figuratively “die once” of their selves [soul sacrifice in marriage] so the remainder of their mortal life will be led by the soul of Jesus, righteously as a Saint. That transformation is the only way a host soul can receive judgment by Yahweh as saved, prior to physical death and the release of that soul. Being in the name of Jesus means “Yah Will Save.” That is then the promise of salvation.

This is what Paul wrote in these five verses. Each and every soul in mortal flesh must marry Yahweh out of love. Then, from that relationship of love, the Son of Yahweh will be reborn into each and every wife of Yahweh [men and women they are made]. That is the only way to gain the salvation of a soul. That means serving the remainder of one’s life as a servant to Yahweh [meaning true ‘popes’ never retire before death]. The work of ministry is decided by Yahweh, meaning the servant has no rights to refuse assignment or argue against difficult work. Love means gladly doing all that Yahweh has one do, out of deep spiritual love of Yahweh.

The specifics of this comes from analyzing each word written by Paul (or whoever translated his Hebrew into Greek). That is the point of my 2018 posting. It is important to see this truth, as it is repeated many times over in the Epistles, by all authors, all divinely inspired to write in the language of Yahweh. From seeing this meaning, I will now apply that to the other reading selections for this Sunday.

In the reading from Ruth, one needs to place focus on it reporting, “Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When they came together, Yahweh made her conceive, and she bore a son.” This becomes a reflection of what Paul wrote, where the “Christ” becomes a creation of Yahweh. It is two coming together in marriage. It is producing a son that is most holy. When Boaz is seen as symbolic of Yahweh, with Ruth a willing subject to that union, then the son born (at the hand of Yahweh, not human hands) is the rebirth of Jesus. Paul is saying the same thing on a spiritual level of understanding.

When one reads the First Kings reading, focus needs to be placed on how “the jar of meal was not emptied, neither did the jug of oil fail.” This is the miracle of divine creation of spiritual food. The jar and the jug are the two who contain Yahweh’s Spirit – the soul married to Yahweh (the jar of flour) and the Son reborn (the jug of oil). The oil reflects the Anointment that is the Spirit of Yahweh, which is poured over the flour to make the bread of life. The fact that it never emptied says the eternal life Paul wrote of bring the same promise of salvation.

As far as the Gospel reading is concerned, when the widow woman theme is repeated here, one needs to look at how Jesus said, “This poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.” All she has to live on is Yahweh within her soul. She is a widow to the mortal world, but her soul lives eternally, through the Spirit of marriage to Yahweh. The number two is also repeated, which are like the jar and the jug, like Boaz and Ruth. The two are her soul with Yahweh. It is the hand of Yahweh that will always refill her hand with two copper coins to give all she has to live on, for as long as her mortal flesh stays alive.

As a reading to be read aloud on the twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, when one’s own personal ministry for Yahweh should already be well underway, the lesson here is to marry one’s soul to Yahweh and give birth to His Son. One must be a Christ, which is not a statement of last name, but a statement that Yahweh’s Spirit has been poured out upon one’s soul, granting it redemption from sins and eternal life beyond death of the flesh (which occurs only one time). The rebirth of Jesus within one Anointed by Yahweh makes one walk the face of the earth as Jesus resurrected in the flesh. The flesh and blood are yours; but they have been submitted to Yahweh, so His hand has worked you to become His Son alive in ministry again. The reason for that is to save others. It is not to make you think you are the greatest thing that ever happened in the world.

Explaining the Readings

Tag Archives: Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost

Judges 4:1-7 – The judge Deborah [Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost]

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 – Stay awake and sober for when the day of the Lord will come [Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost]

Matthew 25:14-30 – What to do with spiritual wealth made avilable? [Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost]

Mark 12:28-34 – Which commandment is the first of all?

Hebrews 9:11-14 – Purification of flesh or soul?

Ruth 1:1-18 – Turn back, my daughters, go your way

Deuteronomy 6:1-9 – God commands for the purpose of fearing God will not be your god

Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17 – Marrying God and having His baby

1 Kings 17:8-16 One last handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug

Hebrews 9:24-28 – The Anointment of Jesus will appear a second time

The Episcopal Lectionary Discerned