For some weeks, I have had a new book laying on my nightstand, but time as not been available to read it until yesterday. Gene Triesch’s Second Edition Truth or Consequences: The Church in a Rearview Mirror is a terrific second book for the Truth seeker. (My best recommendation for first book is here.) Available in paperback and for Kindle, I recommend this book as a solid general overview of the history of, and a brief articulate case for the future of, Israel.
Chapter six begins with a great summary paragraph for the whole book,
As I stated in the Foreword, the primary focus of this book is to emphasize the scriptural basis for Israel’s right to the land of Israel and to expose the error in the anti-Semitic teachings of the Church. At the root of the divide between Jews and Christians is the Christian lack of understanding and practice of God’s Law, which has been handed down through the teachings and traditions of the Church. Because of and across the divide, there is separation, which often results in enmity. Much of the discord between Jews and Christians with regard to the Messiah is attributable to the Christian understanding of Paul’s writings and their inclination to minimize the importance of the Old Testament.
Besides considerable Scriptural quotes to make his case, Triesch offers many historical insights. He cites from a broad number of sources within mainstrean Christianity as well as many contemporary Jewish, Messianic and Hebrew roots resources. His case is well made in 200+ pages that could easily be expanded to thousands.
I especially enjoyed chapter nine, Modern Israel: The “Bully” of the Middle East? Triesch does a fine job of introducing the complexity of the current Israeli situation and the ludicrous nature of world media’s claim that Israel is the problem. He provides a thumbnail sketch of the last hundred years and how the unfolding of Arab oil influence has affected politics, media and ultimately negative public opinion of Israel, and opinion that is grossly undeserved and solidly anti-Biblical.
Of additional interest in the book are various ‘Personal Notes…’ and side bars with interesting additional information, stories and vignettes.
A personal, albeit minor, quibble in the book would be Triesch using Hebrews 8:13 in uncorrected format to make a point regarding the old and new covenant, stone v. heart. I just know I have written about translator error in this verse, but cannot for the life of me find the post right now. The fact is, the word ‘covenant’ does not appear in any Greek manuscript for this verse and as Triesch previous and correctly pointed out on the previous page, ‘the fault was with them,’ and I maintain as Triesch agrees that the subject of this section of Hebrews is the Priesthood, not the Covenant. Maybe I need to add to my Lying Pen of the Scribes series to address this verse since I can’t find that post… Hmmm. Bottom-line, his point stands, but Hebrews 8:13 is not speaking about the covenant.
I do recommend this book to all, but especially those who need a solid retooling of errant Church tradition that minimizes the importance of Israel in present and future history and prophecy. Order a copy for yourself and one to give away!!
What a review, Pete! Thanks for your post here! We are excited about this second edition and do appreciate your review… Gene and LaVada
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, Pete….I think I accidentally found what you wrote regarding Hebrews 8:13. It wasn’t a blog post, it was a reply to someone’s comment on your blog on Antisemitism… back in 2013! (https://natsab.com/2013/02/05/rt-antisemitism/?replytocom=344#respond)
You explained it very well! And we totally agree with you. Here is your comment:
Pete Rambo says:
May 22, 2013 at 9:43 pm
Shalom, Darryl. Welcome and thanks for dropping by. I pray you will take the time to read, process and interact with this blog.
Let’s look at the verse you quoted. “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13)
In the Greek manuscripts, the word ‘covenant’ does not appear. The author of Hebrews uses an eclision (think that’s what it’s called) assuming the reader has followed his train of thought. The book of Hebrews is about a better High Priest and atonement through His blood, not a new covenant.
Hebrews 8:8 tells us He (Yahweh) found fault with THEM, not IT. The fault was with an imperfect priesthood. Verse 7, “For if that first __(eclision: Priest/priesthood)___ had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.” NASB.
Please notice the terms of the renewed covenant:
It is with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. (Where are the gentiles? What does ‘grafted-in’ really mean?)
Yahweh will write His Torah (see the Hebrew word for ‘law’ in Jeremiah 31:33) on our hearts.
The sign of the fulfillment is that we no longer need to teach our brothers…
Please look up the numerous verses about the Millennium wherein we will a) keep Sabbath and new moon festivals (Is. 66:23); b) we will keep the feasts (Zech. 14:16-19); c) we will eat kosher (Is. 66:17) and d) the Torah will go forth from Zion (Micah 4:1-3).
I have chosen to walk as my Messiah walks (I John 2:3-6) and believe all of Scripture exactly as it was written.
I bless you and pray you come into fulness of joy.
We thank you again for reading Gene’s book and doing the review… We do so appreciate all you do!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES… a book review by Pete Rambo | Menorah Music Ministry Blog Site
You have a gift for writing reviews 🙂 Glad to hear that the book is available in Kindle version since it is very difficult to have books shipped to Jordan. Will have to check it out. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sue, I am thinking we met you at the B’Ney Yosef Conference of South Central Texas in New Braunfels, TX, did we not? Did you speak about living in the Gulf of Aqaba? We did so enjoy hearing your perspective on that!! Please do give Gene some feedback, after you read his book…. He is eager to hear the readers’ perspectives!
Blessings & shalom,
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, LaVada, I am sorry but that was not me. I was not at that conference. But we feel very blessed to have been called to live in Aqaba – it is an amazing place!
Will you be in Jerusalem for Sukkot? Maybe we could meet then!
I purchased the book today (on Kindle) and am very much looking forward to reading it. Will try to offer useful comments. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, ok! Well, the young lady who spoke about living in Aqaba sure made it sound wonderful! We wanted to just pack up and move there right away!! 🙂 No, I am sorry to say we will not be in Jerusalem for Sukkot… I can think of nothing we would like better! But, we still have yet to make our first strip to Israel!! Sure wish it could be with the Rambos this year when they go! That would be awesome! But we will have to be patient and go when Abba makes a way for us!! Thanks for buying Gene’s book! He will be anxious to get your feedback! Blessings & shalom to you, dear sister!! –LaVada
Shalom Pete, May I ask which Greek manuscripts you are referring to that support your statement “the word covenant does not appear?” Thanks, Carol
I refer to all of them. To my knowledge, there is NO ancient Greek manuscript that has the word ‘diatheke’ (covenant) or any derivative. That word is ‘supplied’ by translators to “clarify” the verse, only they are blinded by tradition and do not allow the context of the surrounding chapters to answer the question.
Hope that helps, if not, please ask away!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am trying to wrap my understanding in view of the lexicons used for the word covenant in the Greek and Hebrew to why you say priesthood is the context because of the surrounding chapters.
In the Greek it is: G1242 διαθήκη diatheke. This word is used 30 times with 4 of them in the Gospels and as a noun describes covenant or testament.
In the Hebrew it is: H1285 בְּרִית berith used 26 times as covenant.
I can understand how you might use priesthood for allowing for the context of this verse, but I just don’t see it. The word for priesthood is G2420 and is used in Hebrews 7 three times as priesthood. So it appears it was not used in Hebrews 8. G1242 is used 7 times in Hebrews 8 translated as covenant which make perfect sense in the sentences which it is used. Using the word priesthood 7 times in Hebrews 8 does not fit.
“Them” in the context you have described are the ones to who the covenant was made ( the house of Judah and the house of Israel). Speaking of more then the priesthood but including it as you have noted in the surrounding chapters.
Even so, knowing there are many translation errors I depend on the original languages in the Greek and Hebrew to dig out understanding and context. What am I missing with the word diatheke?
Appreciate your time and good work!