[Dear Professors],
After completing three years of Bible school, I considered myself to be fairly solid theologically and I thought I had a good grasp on the doctrines of covenant and atonement. When I returned home, a good friend started preaching the "Law of Moses" to me, telling me that it is still valid for today and we should still keep it. We got in endless debates as I was convinced the Law ended and was replaced by the New Testament. I had a long list of Scriptures that seemingly supported my claim, but one passage always troubled me - Matt. 5:17-20. Not a single Christian theologian could effectively explain this verse and most of them avoided it altogether; and I tried to avoid it. I knew that if this passage was true, then it would have been a major hole in my theology. So I began to be convinced that this passage was a fluke, a mistake - maybe the copyists made a mistake, or somehow it accidentally found its way into Matthew. I was certain that Jesus did not say this because it completely destroyed the foundation of everything I've been taught and believed to be true concerning covenants.
Well, after marrying the daughter of a Messianic pastor and going to Shabbat services for 1 ?years, I still believed Torah was abolished. But then I read a radical book by Lew White, called "Fossilized Customs," which began to tear at my theology. Lew discusses numerous pagan customs that have become "fossilized" in our culture (mainly through the Roman Catholic Church) and he brought up a number of arguments and Scriptures I had never considered, concerning the following of pagan practices. The most prominent thing I got out of the book with was the belief that the 4th commandment is still valid and has never changed.
A few months later my wife and I took an 8-month scouting trip through 12 Latin American countries while looking for signs of an uncontacted tribe to whom we could devote our lives and share the Gospel. After arriving in Rurrenabaque, Bolivia, we immediately started hearing rumors about a savage tribe that lives deep in the jungle. We met a local Assemblies of God missionary who invited us to stay with him. When we told him we were Messianics who believed in Torah, he became agitated and started telling us the very same Scriptures that I once used as arguments against Torah. After a month of friction, he kindly asked us to leave and so we moved to another missionary complex in the town. At this point I didn't know why I believed in Torah - it just seemed right. However, I still didn't follow much of Torah, for we ate catfish thinking it to be okay (by the way, catfish tastes like garbage - no wonder God forbade His people to eat the garbage cleaners of the planet).
After the move to the other side of town, I decided I had to know why I believed what I believed. I read the entire Torah and studied Paul intently. The first serious question I asked myself was concerning the Feasts: Are they still valid for today? If the Feasts were important then I would expect to find them in the Apostolic Scriptures, but I had never remembered reading much about them in the New Testament writings. Well, after a thorough search, I found multiple references to every single Festival in the NT writings. This shocked me! Why hadn't I seen this before? I hadn't seen it because I had never celebrated the Feasts, and knew nothing about them. And likewise, the recipients of the NT writings would not have understood the references to the Festivals unless they themselves were keeping them.
The next bit of revelation dealt with looking at Paul through the lens of Torah, rather than the other way around. We see what we're programmed to see. So if we can step out of our box for just a second and try to view Scripture in light of differing theology, it might look very different. In fact the very same Scriptures that the "Torahless" use to support their theology, the "pro-Torah" also use to support their claim. Peter referred to this concept when he said that the "Torahless" twist Paul's writings. When putting on the lens (or paradigm) of Torah, Paul looks very different and makes a little more sense.
Christians are really at a disadvantage when trying to interpret and understand the Apostolic Scriptures and Early Church thought because today we look at the Tanakh through the lens of the modern interpretation of Paul. But the Early Church and Paul himself looked at Yahshua and the "New Covenant" through the lens of the Law and the Prophets. Yahshua, His disciples, Paul, and all of the 1st generation Christianity viewed Moses and the prophets as "the Word of God," but most 21st century theologians seem reluctant to put them on such a high level.
In his book, The Letter Writer, Tim Hegg describes Paul like this:
"We have seen that Paul considered the Bible to be divinely inspired and the authoritative body of truth by which God is known and in which righteousness for living is described. Paul's Bible consisted of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. He did not have any other writings that he considered to be Scripture, nor did he consider his epistles to be an addition to the Hebrew canon. Paul's view of Scripture precludes any possibility that he taught the abolition of Torah. Since he considered the Torah as divinely inspired Scripture, he received it as God's authoritative revelation for faith and life, and so taught it to those he discipled and instructed. To say otherwise is to misread Paul and to accuse him of errant theology. Finally, the Torah stood as the benchmark for all subsequent Scripture. Since it was the first canon, all subsequent writing that sought to be received as Scripture had to conform to the Torah's exemplar. Anything given that went contrary to what God had already revealed simply could not be received as inspired. Therefore, neither Yeshua nor Paul could have come teaching the abolition of the Torah. If they had taught such a thing, it would have been incumbent upon God's people to reject them as false teachers. This, then, is a core issue: can we read Paul as consistently upholding Torah as the eternal, inspired word of God? Surely we must, or else we will be forced to admit that he was a false teacher. These are our only options."
We don't believe Paul had anything negative to say about the commandments themselves. Rather Paul's negativity dealt with the result of not obeying the commandments. The commandment itself does not bring death - only disobedience to the commandment brings death. Obedience brings life. That is why Yahshua came: so that we might have the power to obey the commandments and live. For example the traffic law saying that we must stop at a red light does not in itself bring death and destruction to the drivers. This commandment was added for our protection and if we obey it, we will live. However, disobedience to this law leads to death by a car accident. This is the same logic Paul is following.
According to 1 Jn. 3:4, sin is disobedience to God's Torah. Paul's main point is that the Law only had the power to define sin - it did not have the power to change our inner beings. Whereas belief in Messiah changes my inner self, by causing me to have both the will and the power to obey Torah.
My next major realization dealt with the Jeremiah 31 passage that I had quoted so often, concerning the New Covenant. When I had originally thought this passage was anti-Torah, I actually realized it is supportive of Torah. "I will write the Torah on their hearts." I used to think that since God's Law is written on my heart under the "New Covenant," then there is no need to follow the written Law. What I hadn't considered was that it is actually the written Law of Moses that is written on my heart and the fact this it is on my heart does not mean that it has changed in any way. Yahshua confirms this in Mt. 5:17f. And Paul confirms this when He says we are to live by the Spirit - the Holy Spirit will never violate His own Law.
While we love and practice the Torah, we do not preach obedience to the law after the manner of modern or ancient Judaism. We, at our congregation, are not Jewish, nor do we attempt to follow the religion of Judaism because we believe that Judaism through its strict adherence to the oral law has strayed from the Torah. We are not to add to nor take away from God's righteous decrees. Judaism adds to them, and Christianity takes away from them. We, in our Shabbat congregation are simply trying to do what the Bible says: "Whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
"Torah" actually means "teaching," and therefore should not carry with it the negative connotations that our English word "law" carries with it. In NT writings it seems the two most common nuances are the written law and the written plus oral law together. To the first century Jew, the written law and the oral law were inseparable (see Acts 10:28 where Peter equates oral law with Torah). This was how Yahshua was revolutionary: while He often followed the oral law, He strongly opposed the oral law when it conflicted with the written law. In Matt. 15:3, Yahshua challenged the Pharisees, "Why do you break the Torah for the sake of your tradition?" And today, He is challenging Christianity with the exact same question.
There are essentially two viewpoints concerning Torah. The anti-Semitic view (following Martin Luther's theology) says that God gave the Torah to the Jews to burden them because He hated them, but He loves us and so we don't have to follow the same set of laws. This view lumps the Torah into moral, ceremonial, dietary, and civil laws, but these separations cannot be validated by Scripture. "Torah" is singular and not plural - there is One set of laws, and not 4 or 5 sets of laws. The anti-Semitic viewpoint completely falls apart after reading such passages as Deut. 4:5-8, "What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way YHWH is near us . and what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws."
Whereas, the Semitic, or "Jewish" view sees the Torah as a revelation of God Himself. Torah reveals the attributes of God Himself and every aspect of Torah points to Yahshua. And as Daniel Lancaster points out in his book, Restoration, to edit or change Torah in any way is to edit or change God. So when Christianity changed the Sabbath, and outlawed the Jewish festivals, dietary observances and other laws, this religion has actually attempted to edit God Himself. One thing that shocked me recently was the realization that God equated the eating of "unclean" meats with homosexuality. He used the same word "abomination" (Is. 66:17, Deut 14:3, Lev 18:22) to describe both of these sins. But today we preach the opposite in our Sunday churches - we have attempted to edit God.
The main difference between what "modern" Christianity believes and what we believe deals with the definition of "the righteous requirements of the Law." Righteousness and love are the core teachings of most religions: Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, Christianity, etc. In fact, one of my friends has converted from Christianity to the New Age religion of Eckankar, and now he preaches "love" and "righteousness" more than most Christians I know. But the definition of "righteousness" according to Torah is slightly different. While the core teaching of righteousness (essentially the Ten Commandments) is found in most religions, many of these world religions declare much of Torah's "righteous" decrees to be unrighteous, such as the Sabbath, the Festivals, the dietary laws, etc. In fact in the fourth century, Christianity outlawed these righteous observances calling them "Jewish." The righteousness of Torah follows all 613 commandments. (Obviously, many of these commandments are irrelevant without a Temple in Jerusalem).
WWJD? We know what Yahshua did (He followed Torah perfectly), but the real question is: If He came today, would He do the same? According to Heb. 13:8, 1 Sam. 15:29, Mal. 3:6, and Num. 23:19, He would do exactly the same . so why do we do differently?
The Mosaic and New Covenant do not represent two "opposing" covenants, as taught by replacement theology. Rather all the covenants in Scripture reveal the one Covenant that God is making with man. The righteous requirements of the Mosaic Covenant (all 613 commandments) are the same righteous requirements under the "New Covenant" - Yahshua discussed this in Mt 5:17-20. In fact Yahshua even commanded His followers to keep the "least of these commandments." The least of the commandments are those that incur no great penalty for breaking - such as the wearing of tzitzit, the not wearing of mixed fabrics, not tattooing oneself, etc.
Shalom,
Ben
---------------
[From: Professor #1]
Dear Ben,
...As to the notion that the Gentile recipients of Paul's letters were keeping the Feasts -- that is quite a jump and absolutely without logical merit. The early Jewish believers NEVER required or expected the Gentiles to keep the biblical calendar, and Paul was only accused of telling Jewish believers to disregard Torah. It was never an issue with the Gentile believers. Furthermore, passages such as Galatians 2 must mean SOMETHING, no matter how much of a traditional Messianic Jewish spin you put on it. (I hope you can get my point without me having to develop it in detail.)
Also, have you read solid Matthew commentaries such as those by D. A. Carson (in the Expositor's Bible Commentary) or Craig Keener? They deal adequately and fairly with key passages such as Matt 5:17-20. And note that there is at least a two-fold issue in Yeshua's comments there: 1) He is not just talking about the Torah but the Torah and Prophets, meaning the entire Tanakh. 2) The contrast is not between abolish and strengthen but between abolish and fulfill. That is of great importance, especially in Matthew's Gospel. Look into this, and I believe you will receive more insight.
I have also just finished refuting the objections that Jesus abolished the Law or that Paul abolished the Law in vol. 4 of my series on Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, which should be out in the fall. I also treat the issue of the meaning of the new covenant there, as well as in my forthcoming commentary on Jeremiah. In short, I agree with SOME of your points, but certainly not all. As for Peter's comment in 2 Pet 3 -- where in the world do you get the idea that these were "Torah-less" people? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you miswrote or misquoted something, but if you are seriously saying that that was Peter's point, I SERIOUSLY question the soundness of any of the points you are trying to make. Ben, this is preposterous, and nothing less. (By the way, when you speak of Paul's Bible, etc., remember that he also quoted the words of Jesus as "scripture," and that Peter grouped Paul's writings with the Scriptures.) The same can be said for the Lancaster comment about "editing God." Don't you think that God-fearing people who revere every word of Torah but do not agree with your conclusions have a reason for saying that some things have changed?
I do have Tim Hegg's book and while I appreciate his perspective, I believe there are other considerations to raise as well. In short, Christian scholars of Paul have not been all wrong, completely in the dark, misrepresenting the Lord. Ben, I dialogue every Wednesday night for 60-90 minutes with an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, and we have exchanged more than 250 pages of emails discussing the issue of Torah and its role today. I fully understand the argument that if Jesus or Paul abolished the Torah they could not be legitimate. But you are missing the fact that God did not stop acting or speaking at Sinai, and Yeshua, not Torah, is central to His eternal dealings. Check out Yeshua's own words through the Gospels -- esp. in John -- and read passages such as Col. 1. The point is clear: He must have the supremacy.
What's my point? Simply this: You have to examine the possibility that with the Messiah's coming into the world, certain changes DID come. Doesn't Hebrews teach this plainly as well, at least with regard to the high priesthood and sacrifices? (Read Hebrew 7-9 carefully, without trying to put a strange spin on every word. Read it in five or ten different translations if you're not totally fluent in Greek.) The error is to put Torah first and interpret Yeshua through those eyes. The reality is that you only care about Torah BECAUSE OF YESHUA -- really, because of Jesus, meaning, because God chose to make Him known to the world as a whole, and He did it using the Greek form of His name, as found in the Tanakh more than 25x. Start with Him and work your way back to Torah, not the reverse.
In that light, the recent books of Andrew Das on Paul and the Law are also worth reviewing, as well as a "traditional" restatement of the classic, Christian interpretation of Paul in Frank Thielman's recent book. The issues are not as simple as some Messianic writers allege! Also, get online and and check out the recent study of Risto Santala. These all bring perspectives that you need to consider. As for the Lew White book -- there are LOTS of very dangerous and serious misstatements and overstatements in the book. (Sorry, but I don't have time to get into details now; if you'd like a good reaction, send a copy of the book to [Prof. 2] to review!) For the Santala book online, go to: http://www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/Paul/paul01.html
One more question: Please tell me, in a practical way in your own life, how you follow Torah commandments such as those found in Lev 15? Having been a leader in a key Messianic congregation for six years (1987-1993), and having spent countless hours in dialogue with many Messianic Jewish teachers and theologians, I have a key reason for asking this question. It is not just abstract, but it is going somewhere.
Please write further when you have the time. You are on a journey, and just as your views changed radically over the last few years, you might be surprised to see where they go in the coming years.
Blessings and grace,
[Professor #1]
---------------
[another response From: Professor #1]
Dear Ben,
May I ask you another simple question about Torah observance, one which is much more foundational? (I could ask dozens, but your answer to this and my other question about Lev 15 would be helpful in understanding your perspective.) Since Jesus went to Jerusalem three times a year for the festivals, do you do the same? After all, it is commanded by God in Exod 23:14-17, then again in Exod 34:23-24, then again in Deut 16:16-17. And the commandments concerning the festivals for Israel were "for all generations." Based on your reading of Matt 5:17-20, does this make you least in the kingdom of heaven if you don't go to Jerusalem three times a year for these holy convocations?
I am honestly trying to help you see some things for your own good, and I assure you that if you dialoged with a very religious rabbi, he would challenge you on hundreds of other areas of your alleged Torah observance, such as your allegiance to Exod 16:29 (in other words, do you go out on the Sabbath?).
The moment you answer me with a halachic principle based on the teachings of Yeshua, you are heading in the right direction -- but that's just the start.
Blessings and grace,
[Professor #1]
-------------
[From: Ben
To: Prof. #1 and #2]
[Dear Professors],
>> As to the notion that the Gentile recipients of Paul's letters were keeping the Feasts -- that is quite a jump and absolutely without logical merit.
On the contrary, it is a jump to say that they didn't. Granted, many of the Early Church fathers of the second century refused to celebrate the Feasts, but curiously, they always mentioned Christian sects who WERE still keeping the Feasts. Hegesippus (170 AD - Book V) said, "For, in order to attend the Passover, all the tribes have congregated hither, and some of the GENTILES also." Paul commanded the Corinthians to "keep Passover." Y'shua commanded his followers to "do [Passover] in remembrance of Him." And again Paul exhorted the Colossians to only allow the Church to judge them, and not their pagan acquaintances. In fact, Paul goes on to say that Shabbat and the Festivals "are a shadow of things coming" in the future. This is significant! The NIV tried to twist the meaning by saying that they "are a shadow of the things that were to come. Many other translations also try to obscure what the Greek text is actually saying. If the future events and Y'shua are casting a shadow that looks like Shabbat and the Festivals, I want to be in the middle of this shadow, so I can further learn about the Kingdom.
>> Galatians 2 must mean SOMETHING
Yes, it does. "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are Torah-breakers, does that mean that Christ promotes disobedience to Torah? Absolutely not!" (vs 17) Gal. 2 & 3 does not say that we are free from the rule of law nor that the law has changed. Rather it says that we are to follow the pattern left by Abraham - faith is the prerequisite for lawful obedience. The opposite is legalism - obedience before faith.
David Stern brings out an interesting point in his book Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel, by quoting C.E.B. Cranfield who said, ". the Greek language of Paul's day possessed no word-group corresponding to our "legalism", "legalist" and "legalistic." . In view of this, we should always, we think, be ready to reckon with the possibility that Pauline statements, which at first sight seem to disparage the law, were really directed not against the law itself but against that misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we now have a convenient terminology." Stern goes on to say that "works of law" should more correctly be translated, "legalistic observance of particular Torah commands," while "under the law" should be translated, "in subjection to the system that results from perverting Torah into legalism." If Paul meant that we're not "under the law" in the sense that we're not bound by the law, then the result would be that "anything goes." So, obviously "under the law" must take on a different meaning. (Paul himself said he was bound by God's law - Rom. 7:25).
Gal. 2 is also foundational for our belief that we do not have to be Jewish. We do not care for most Jewish customs and we do not think they are important or essential for salvation. They are not even essential for obedience to Torah, and I believe this is one of the points that Paul is trying to make.
We think that Paul continually pointed the finger at circumcision, but circumcision itself was not his point. (In fact, there is no specific law in Torah that makes circumcision a prerequisite for becoming a proselyte). Any other "work" (i.e. baptism, tithing, church attendance, etc) can be substituted for the word "circumcision" without changing the point of what Paul is saying - we are not saved by our "good works."
The writings of Paul that are most misunderstood concerning the law, all focus on justification. According to Paul, we are not justified by any work or any righteous act that we do. However, sanctification is another story - and this is what we are discussing.
>> have you read solid Matthew commentaries such as those by D. A. Carson (in the Expositor's Bible Commentary) or Craig Keener? . Look into this, and I believe you will receive more insight.
I do not have access to such sources, currently. Anyway, I believe that I fully understand the "Christian" position concerning Torah, since this was the doctrine I was taught from childhood. And now that I have studied the other views, I choose not to put a traditional Christian "spin" on this passage. I personally like part of what the NIV commentary says on the passage because it lines up well with Pauline thought. It mentions that Y'shua emphasized the underlying principles and total commitment to Torah rather than mere external acknowledgement and obedience. It further says that Y'shua "is not speaking against observing all the requirements of the Law, but against hypocritical, Pharisaical legalism." I guess the NIV commentators got smart and realized that Y'shua wasn't lying when He said that abolition of the Torah was not in God's plan.
>> As for Peter's comment in 2 Pet 3 -- where in the world do you get the idea that these were "Torah-less" people?
I made the leap in my own head that the "ignorant and unstable" people misinterpreting Paul were lawless. But you might be right in assuming that it was not the lawless, but rather the righteous who misinterpreted Paul, and were "ignorant and unstable."
>> The same can be said for the Lancaster comment about "editing God."
Before writing Lancaster off completely, it might be worthwhile to hear the reasoning behind this. Y'shua said, "Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks." When God spoke the Torah to Moses at Sinai, it was out of the overflow of His heart. Every single commandment reveals something about the heart of God.
>> Don't you think that God-fearing people who revere every word of Torah but do not agree with your conclusions have a reason for saying that some things have changed?
Yes, but I can ask you the same question about the "God-fearers" that say nothing has changed. I do believe that God-fearing people, like yourself, have a reason for saying that things have changed; however isn't it curious that this circle of "God-fearing people" cannot agree on what exactly has changed? For instance, I believe that things have changed as well, but in my belief, the "what" that has changed deals purely with salvation. And "salvation" according to Mt. 1:21 is salvation from disobedience to Torah (sure there is a future salvation as well). In other words, my belief is that the "change" that has occurred is a change in the heart attitude towards Torah. This "change" is NOT a change in the definition of sin, as outlined by Torah (and therefore, it is not a change in the Torah). What troubles me is when people say the opposite: that our hearts remain the same and the Torah has changed. The reasoning behind this statement makes no sense, other than the possibility that these people just don't want to follow God's laws (or they're just anti-Semitic like many of the "Church Fathers" and "history-makers").
>> when you speak of Paul's Bible, etc., remember that he also quoted the words of Jesus as "scripture"
Compare how often Paul quoted Y'shua with how often he quoted Tanakh. He quoted Y'shua once (that I know of), but quoted from (or made clear allustions to) the Tanakh about 111 times. Paul's whole argument is based entirely on the authority of the Tanakh. Take away its significance, and Paul's letters no longer carry any weight.
>> I fully understand the argument that if Jesus or Paul abolished the Torah they could not be legitimate. But you are missing the fact that God did not stop acting or speaking at Sinai, and Yeshua, not Torah, is central to His eternal dealings.
Torah is the spoken Word of God, which is equivalent to Y'shua. Torah = Y'shua! Y'shua = Torah! Y'shua is central in the teachings of Torah, and Torah is central in the teachings of Y'shua. And both are central in the minds of the Patriarchs. Is God schizophrenic? Will He contradict Himself? Does He command certain worshippers to follow one legal code, while He changes this legal code for others? Why does Lev. 24:22 say that the SAME Torah is for the Gentile as well as the Jew? What the Torah just meant for a season in order to punish the Jews (as Martin Luther says), but now the standard of righteousness is changed?
I like Eugene Peterson's rendering for law: signposts. He says that in the books of Moses, the Israelites were "learning how to give their full attention to obedience and adoration to God." And likewise, through the Torah, I am learning how to give my full attention to obedience and adoration of Yah.
>> The point is clear: He must have the supremacy.
This is one the main points that Paul endlessly argues in his letters, and this is the point where many Messianic groups fail. In our experience, most Messianic groups either lean toward the legalistic observance of Torah (and essentially forget Y'shua) or they lean toward Christianity (and forget Torah). We try to follow the middle road, however, it can be difficult at times.
>> You have to examine the possibility that with the Messiah's coming into the world, certain changes DID come. Doesn't Hebrews teach this plainly as well, at least with regard to the high priesthood and sacrifices?
You previously mentioned that neither Y'shua nor Paul abolished Torah. So I'm assuming, by the above statement, that the changes you are referring to deal with the Temple sacrifices - now being shifted to the "cross" and Y'shua being the High Priest. Heb. 7-9 is not clear enough proof that the earthly Temple ministry is abolished. In fact, this earthly ministry was still in affect at the time Hebrews was written! Even if that is the message here in Hebrews (that a change has occurred), this is only ONE "witness." Where are the other witnesses that the Temple ministry has changed?
The common interpretation is that Hebrews teaches plainly that "changes" in the sacrificial system did come; however, doesn't Jer. 30:20f, Acts 21:17-26, Ez. 40-48, and Zech. 14, challenge the modern interpretation, forcing us to rethink what the book of Hebrews is actually saying? Did God break His covenant with the Levites? Was Paul a hypocritical heretic for offering a sacrifice AFTER the time of Y'shua? Was Ezekiel on drugs and demonically inspired when he wrote his last 8 chapters? . and Zech. 14?
A better interpretation of Hebrews explains how Y'shua is the "spiritual" high priest, in the "spiritual" temple. His ministry does not conflict with the earthly ministry nor with the Levitical covenant; rather the earthly ministry is a shadow of the heavenly ministry. If the God of Christianity broke His covenant with the Levites, then we are currently involved in a Covenant with a "covenant-breaking" God.
Anyway, since the Temple does not currently exist, there are much more important considerations for us to think about. For example: What about the Sabbath? The festivals? The edible/unedible food laws? Do we now consider dogs, cats, tigers, wolves, rats, lizards, snakes, etc, to now be edible? If neither Y'shua nor Paul abolished Torah, AND neither Y'shua nor Paul nor any other NT writer discussed the so-called "changes" that have taken place concerning these laws, then why do we even begin to consider that they have changed? The answer: tradition! Sabbath worship and Jewish festival observance were both outlawed by the Council of Laodicea in 364 AD, and the holy weekday was "officially" changed from Saturday to Sunday. As a result of this accomplishment, the RCC now thinks they have authority over Scripture - for they "changed" Scripture and got away with it!
Here is proof from Geiermann's Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine:
"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
Today, we still follow the RCC pattern even though we are not Catholics. We are PROTESTants - we're part of the movement that protested the heretical sect of Catholicism, yet we keep most of their unbiblical traditions. We do exactly what the Israelites did in the wilderness with the golden calf: we try to make a pagan festival holy simply by saying, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to YHWH." Are pagan festivals made holy just by tacking haShem onto it? Every year, Christians declare at least two pagan festivals to be festivals to YHWH. Easter is NOT a celebration of Y'shua's resurrection; rather, the Feast of Firstfruits is. Christmas is NOT a celebration of His birth; rather, Sukkot (if any) is. The etymology of the word "Christ-mass" alone is enough to prove its syncretistic pagan origins, let alone the time of year and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated. In fact Tertullian said, "By us who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia are now frequented." Also, Paul said that these biblical festivals and holy days are shadows of things coming in the future; therefore, don't let anyone judge you, but the qahal.
>> The error is to put Torah first and interpret Yeshua through those eyes.
This statement is only partially, for this is not the Biblical pattern. Which came first: Torah or Y'shua's ministry? Torah! Y'shua Himself taught the people through the lens of Torah and the Prophets. And while the disciples were usually portrayed as clueless, at the end of Luke, Y'shua explains (on the road to Emmaus) about Himself through the lens of the Tanakh. Again in Acts, Peter's speech and Stephen's speech both taught Y'shua through the lens of Torah.
I do believe it is important to look at Torah through Y'shua, but even Y'shua did not say anything new or revolutionary. Prior to Y'shua, the prophets and sages had already picked up on the same important truth that Y'shua emphasized - love and obedience with the heart, as opposed to a superficial, religious works-based obedience. The latter is exactly why Yah said that He hated their festivals and sacrifices. And Y'shua repeated, "You honor me with your lips, but your hearts are far from me." (The Pharisees problem was that they failed to view Y'shua through the Torah; rather they used all their man-made traditions as "the standard," and Y'shua did not fit into this standard).
But here is the catch: the prophet must first be established as a prophet from God by viewing him through the lens of the Torah. Before we follow him, we must first evaluate whether he is speaking Torah or whether he is speaking presumptuously. Otherwise, we will be following every self-proclaimed prophet, trying to view Torah through their eyes. We will be no better than the Corinthians who ignorantly followed the "super-apostles." However, after the prophet is established, then it would be beneficial to view Torah through his eyes.
Torah is the standard, and the measuring rod by which everything should be measured.. Torah "hits the mark," and you already know what "misses the mark."
>> The reality is that you only care about Torah BECAUSE OF YESHUA
True, but does this negate the opposite in the eyes of others? Do not the true Messianic Jews only care about Y'shua because of the Torah? I don't see these two statements as being in opposition to each other. Your statement is exactly my point. As a Gentile, I care about Torah because of Y'shua. This is salvation. And this should be no different for any other Gentile believer, but in reality many "believers" are actually opposed to the Law of God, the Torah.
>> Start with Him and work your way back to Torah, not the reverse.
True, for the Gentile there is much validity to this statement, since this is the pattern the Jerusalem Council taught the Gentiles; and this is the pattern I have been following. I spent years studying "Jesus" apart from Torah, and finally I am beginning to look at the Torah. However, the 1st Century Gentile converts were immediately immersed into Torah through the local synagogues, whereas I have not had this blessing until recently. Y'shua is all throughout the Torah, and it speaks of Him, so why don't we make it the core of our studies? What better way to learn about Y'shua than through Torah and the Prophets.
>> As for the Lew White book -- there are LOTS of very dangerous and serious misstatements and overstatements in the book.
I agree. However, his preaching to forsake the paganism deeply rooted in our traditions is a punch in the gut and a wake up call to the average Christian. His poor writing style and lack of citations has forced me to research most of his claims on my own. And what I have found is that much (not all) of his research is exactly right. (See Alexander Hislop's, The Two Babylons, for one of the most well-documented sources on the pagan customs in the Catholic Church). Lew has two main weaknesses in his book: 1) It's written in a very judgmental and divisive tone which has caused fight after fight in the lives of the many readers on this book . and 2) His radical claims, such as "lord" = "baal" and "jesus" = "hail Zeus," etc., reflect poorly on his own scholarship and desire to teach "truth" to the masses. According to James, he will be judged for his wrong teaching, and I'm glad I'm not in his shoes.
>> Please tell me, in a practical way in your own life, how you follow Torah commandments such as those found in Lev 15?
Verse 31 makes it clear that these clean/unclean passages, along with others, are in direct connection with the Temple. Obviously, the correct sacrifices cannot be made for the uncleanness when there is no Temple. Deut. 12:5-11 commands specifically that the sacrifices be made at the Temple where the Name of YHWH dwells. It is against the Torah to sacrifice outside of this context. But the halachic principle can turn this chapter into a teaching on hygiene. There is a reason that the Jews didn't get the bubonic plague in the middle ages, and many speculate that it is because of the principle of cleanliness as outlined in Lev. 15.
>> Since Jesus went to Jerusalem three times a year for the festivals, do you do the same?
We have three ways to looks at this. 1) The point is not to visit Jerusalem, but to visit the Temple. In Ex. 23:17, to "appear before the sovereign YHWH," seems to refer to a Temple context. Same with Ex. 34:23 and with Deut. 16:16. 2) I might be wrong, but I believe the rabbinic ruling states that the requirement for going to the Temple is specifically for those living within a day's walk of it, while the others are not as pressed to go. 3) It seems illogical to have all the men in the entire world to be at the Temple and go through the required rituals. It would be an impossibility for them all to fulfill all the requirements in the allotted time. So, possibly, there were just representatives from each nation at the Temple. Zech. 14 explains how, in the Millennium, the whole world will be commanded to celebrate Sukkot, and any nation without a representative at the Temple will have a curse fall on them (I'm assuming a "representative" in this passage, even though it is not specifically stated). There is a story (which I cannot validate) about an African tribe who was cursed with no rain. They sent a representative to Jerusalem for Sukkot, and immediately upon returning home, the land received rain. Our congregation is leaning towards the sending of a representative to Jerusalem each year, but my personal feeling leans toward what I previously stated in #1.
Are we in a paranthesis of grace, currently? Do we not need to worry about the Festivals now, but suddenly in the Millennium (according to Zech. 14) we will all be observing the Festivals (even the Gentile nations)?
>> Exod 16:29 (in other words, do you go out on the Sabbath?)
Absolutely. But I do not "go out" in the sense of what Ex. 16:29 is referring to. By letting the Torah interpret itself, it is clear from other passages that we must congregate together on particular Sabbaths - this requires "going out" of our homes. Also, we know that Y'shua congregated in the synagogue on Shabbat. The Ex. 16:29 passage (and I believe I'm in agreement with the ruling the of the Sages) is specifically referring to the "going out" to collect manna. By commanding no one to "go out," the significance, in context of ch. 16, is to not go out and gather manna. The Sages, I believe, later ruled that one must stay within his village and not to travel to the outskirts of the towns. From this ruling, the oral law ended up with the "Sabbath Day's journey" as mentioned in Acts. But isn't it interesting that this commandment concerning Shabbat was given even before the 10 commandments? I believe this is significant concerning its importance and relevance to our own lives.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your questions, challenges, and thoughts very much. I hope to further sharpen you, as you do with me.
After reviewing my responses I have written up to your questions, it became obvious to me that the ultimate issue we are dealing with is the definition of sin, and this is the issue I would appreciate further discussion on.
What is sin? Let's forget, just for a sec, the abstract definition of sin that is used by most Christians and let's see how the Bible defines sin. According to John, sin is disobedience to the law (1 Jn 3:4). According to Paul, sin is disobedience to the law (Rom 7:25). And according to Messiah, sin is disobedience to even the smallest commandment of the law (Mt. 5:19-20). Here are three witnesses. Do we need more? I'm sure we can find more: 1 Cor. 7:19; James 1:22; John 14:15; Rom. 3:31; 7:25; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; Num. 15:14-16; Deut. 4:5-8; 5:29; 11:1,26-28; Ps. 19:7; 105:43-45; 111:7-9; Ps 119:1-176; Pr. 28:9; Is. 5:24f; Jer. 9:12-14; Ez. 36:27; 37:24.
Sin is disobedience to God's law. Messiah came to save us from our disobedience to God's law (this is salvation). So in order to further answer this question, we must ask: What is "God's law," in this age? In other words, did God's law change when Y'shua died? Can we find 2 or 3 witnesses attesting to this? If the Torah is no longer God's law, then what did God's law change to? Is the law now an abstract law that is different for everybody? Or is the law based on a cultural norm? Or is the law the 1089 written commandments found in the Apostolic Scriptures (sometimes called the "law of Christ")? Why is the standard of righteousness different for the OT Jew than for the NT Gentile?
Is the law now an abstract law? If the law is merely abstract, then there is no set standard of righteousness. This concept leads to the phrase, "Well, I'm not convicted about [such and such] so I don't have to keep that particular law." The flaws in this logic are endless. Lack of conviction does not make something lawful (see 1 Tim. 4:2). While there is quite a bit of abstractness concerning many laws in Torah, this does not negate the rule of law expressed by Torah. For example, Torah commands us to "keep the Sabbath holy," but how do you exactly do this? Torah is not as clear as I would like, but leaves room for the "conscience." My understanding is that we focus on YHWH, don't do as we please, and don't go against our conscience. While the application of conscience to Torah interpretation implies an abstract law, there must be a core standard of righteousness or there will be chaos. And the Torah is this core standard, or the rule of law.
Is the law merely cultural? If the law is based on a cultural norm, then Christianity is no different than the Pharisees who added all of their man-made laws to the Torah. God doesn't like this.
Do the 1089 NT commandments replace the Torah? If the written "law of Christ" serves to replace written Torah . well, this doesn't make much sense either, because most of these NT laws are in direct reference to Torah. (ie, James 1:22 says to do what Torah says; and Paul, before the "law of Christ" was written, said that he was a slave to God's Law). And, if Christ really is God, and God doesn't change, then we should expect that this "law of Christ" is the same law originally revealed to the Israelites.
Did God's law change at all? We cannot find 2 or 3 Scriptural witnesses supporting the claim that the Torah has changed. The only supposed witness is the author of the book of Hebrews. But the fact that he stands alone indicates that our interpretation of this book is slightly skewed. It's time to do some rethinking of the core "Christian" doctrines.
What is the Torah, if it is not THE standard of righteousness? It makes no sense whatsoever that God would change His standard of righteousness for the NT Gentiles.
My conclusion: The Torah is the rule of law defining sin. Breaking even the smallest commandment found in the Torah is sin.
[Professor #1], what are your thoughts on sin? Where in the Bible is sin defined? And why are you allowed to break some of God's commandments, but not others?
Thank you for considering my thoughts and challenging me accordingly,
Ben
---------------
[From: Prof. #1]
Ben,
Thanks for taking the time to reply, but at this point I must be quite candid with you: The last thing I have the time or inclination to do is get into an extended e-debate, and my impression is not so much that you have honest questions and are seeking to learn from me as much as you have a position you are trying to prove. I have carefully and prayerfully studied many of these issues for the last 30 years, with more than 20 years of that time including lots of interaction with Messianic Jewish friends, and with multiplied hundreds of hours spent in interaction with rabbis, especially the very Orthodox. All the more then do I have neither the time nor inclination to debate these points with you. Should [Prof. #2] feel to continue the discussion, I'll leave that to him.
I can only say that I categorically differ with some of your assumptions and positions, I find you taking the easy way out of certain Torah laws, and I will tell you in advance that you are going backwards and not forwards. Some of your statements are also totally unscriptural, e.g., that Yeshua = Torah and Torah = Yeshua. If that were the case, we should be able to use them interchangeably (just like you could say that Dr. Michael Brown = Nancy Brown's husband, hence, Nancy Brown's husband is the president of FIRE School of Ministry, etc.). But you CANNOT do that with Torah and Yeshua; to do so is scriptural gibberish. How about John 1:17? "For Yeshua was given through Moses; grace and truth came through the Law." That is NOT what John was saying! How about Rom 3:21-22a? Let's adjust it according to your theology: "But now a righteousness from God, apart from Yeshua, has been made known, to which Yeshua and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in the law to all who believe." Nonsense!
I'm sadly disappointed to see some of your responses -- especially writing off the NIV and other translation as trying "to twist the meaning" of the words -- and I hope and pray, that, just as you passed through different phases over the years, you will pass through this one as well and find fullness in Yeshua once again.
Blessings and grace,
[Professor #1]
----------------
[From: Prof. #2]
Dear Ben,
I am very busy, and it is taking me some time to respond to the emails I receive, so I cannot get into an e-debate either. But because of my concern for you, I feel I should say a couple of things. If you want to respond, that is fine, but please do not be offended if I do not keep the dialogue going. I think [Prof. 1]'s words are important for you to listen to carefully. His knowledge and years of experience with the very issues you bring up, coming from the perspective of one who understands what it means to follow the torah, should mean a lot to you. I hope you are not closed to his wisdom in this matter. Certain comments you made cause me to wonder if this is true. Please understand that you are in a process, and as much as you think you know now, in a few years you will realize how limited your knowledge was. This is true of all of us, but at some point we become aware of the limitations of our knowledge, and become a bit more humble. I hope you can read this with the type of humility that Jesus would be pleased with.
You really should try to learn more about the issues behind the interpretation of Paul's views of the law. When you say you "fully understand" the Christian interpretation, it reveals how limited your knowledge is. There is not single Christian interpretation. There are several of them, and the one your church taught you is just one, and not necessarily the best one. I will cut to the chase. The real issue is not the definition of law, or the definition of sin, as you suggested. The issue is how the law is obeyed by new covenant Christians. Paul used "nomos" in at least 6 different ways, though all 6 get the same English translation, "law." Stern has no real basis for his interpretation of "under the law" and "works of the law." Paul's references to law are not to a misuse of law, but to the law itself. For example, in Rom 7:4-7 Paul says we "were made to die to the law" and we are "released from the law." This does not refer to a misuse of the law, for Paul goes on to say that the law is not sin. If he were referring to a misuse of the law, then it would be sin. It is the law as a way of living that we are no longer under. There is another way of living, not the old way of serving God by following a list of rules, but by following the Holy Spirit, that results in holy living. Paul says by following the law of the Spirit, which is the law that Paul followed, we "fulfill the righteous requirements of the law." If you live by the law, trying your best to obey it, you end up sinning, because no one is able to keep the law without offending. That is why Jesus came. He did what no man could do. Jesus, through his death and resurrection, gave us a power to overcome sin, a power that the law did not possess. No, Jesus does not equal the law. Jesus is greater than the law! Don't ever forget that.
The issue here is not justification. It is holy living after being justified. You incorrectly refer to NT comments on circumcision as referring to justification, but Galatians is anything but that. Paul reminds the church how they were saved in Gal 3:1-3, and then asks if they think they will be perfected (sanctification) differently than the way they were saved? Of course not!. Having been saved, the church was trying to progress through the law, and Paul says they were bewitched. The "works of the law" here again is not a misuse of the law, but merely its use. It refers to the Galatians inclination to be circumcised. There is no mention anywhere of the problem being a superficial obedience versus one from the heart. It is the fact of circumcision according to the law that is the problem. Galatians 5:3 is even more clear: "every man who receives circumcision...is under obligation to keep the whole law." The result is, "you have been severed from Christ" (v. 4). Surely you cannot suggest that everyone who is circumcised comes under a misuse of the law. No, it is the use of the law that severs one from Christ. Why? Because there are two ways to righteousness, according to Paul. One is through works of the law, and the other is through faith in Christ. You can only have one or the other, not both. If you have the former, you make yourself a transgressor and put yourself under a curse, for all have sinned. If you have the latter, you are forgiven, and your faith is counted as righteousness. If you think this suggests wanton living or antinomianism, that is understandable. Paul knew some of he readers would think that. That is why he explained himself so clearly in Rom 6-8. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Shall we sin because we are not under law? Of course not. Rather, only because we are under grace, not law, are we able to obey what God requires of us. That is the teaching of Romans.
Jesus did come to fulfill all the law. But fulfillment of the law comes in two ways. Some laws he fulfilled, and we are also to fulfill them in the same way, such as moral commands that are repeated in the NT. But other aspects of the law Jesus fulfilled to completion, and we are not required to re-fulfill them. For example, his sacrifice for sins rendered all other sacrifices unnecessary. That does not mean it is wrong to offer sacrifices. Paul did it, and the early church attended them in the temple. But I would bet that those Christians had a far greater appreciation of the meaning of those sacrifices than those around them who did not believe in Jesus. The point is that such participation in sacrifices was not required, certainly not for Gentiles, after the sacrifice of Jesus took place. It was fulfilled finally by Jesus and does not need to be re-fulfilled by us. That is why the destruction of the temple does not hinder Christian worship. Because the temple of Jesus' body was killed and raised again, we are now the temple, indwelt by Messiah. The need for pilgrimages to Jerusalem was meant to emphasize the gathering of ourselves together, to be united as the body of Messiah. The meaning of many other laws fulfilled in Christ also gives richness to our walk with God, I hope you are able to see these things, and are not blinded by a literalistic obedience to laws that are now fulfilled in the Spirit through Messiah. I pray that you are not bewitched, as the Galatians were, and that Jesus will give you insight into the truths of his word.
In Christ,
[Professor #2]
-----------------
[Dear Professors],
Thank you very much for your responses and for considering my recent thoughts on these issues. I understand how busy ya'll can be, and that is definitely understandable. I appreciate your concern and your sincere thoughtfulness of my spiritual state along with your desire for me to have a proper understanding of theological issues. Thanks again! :)
Shalom,
Ben
My response & elucidation, which I chose not to send to them:
These responses are exactly what was expected from "intelligent" theologians who are not open to differing opinions. They completely ignore the bulk of my arguments (mainly because they are difficult to argue against using Scripture), and instead, they pick out my weaker points and focus on them. However, what is interesting is that this "weak" point that they tried to counter is actually very strong.
The "weak" point in discussion, here, is whether or not Y'shua equals Torah. Read what the Bible says: The Torah is the WORD of God, written down by Moses; Y'shua is the living WORD of God (John 1:1). According to simple philosophy, if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Y'shua must be equivalent to the Torah, otherwise either 1) John lied when he said that Y'shua is the WORD or 2) The Torah did not really come from God.
Y'shua further validated the claim that He is the living Torah, when He said, "Whatever spoken out of the mouth comes from the heart." The Torah, spoken by YAH, came from His heart. This heart is the SAME heart as the heart of Y'shua.
The main point [Prof. #1] used to validate the supposed inequality was John 1:17. According to his argument nomos (in Greek), is translated as Torah, however, as [Prof. #2] pointed out nomos has numerous nuances. Obviously, in this instance, the nuance of nomos is NOT Torah, for John's very first sentence equated Y'shua with Torah. Also, there is just as much "grace and truth" in Torah as there is in Messiah. But according to [Prof. #1]'s claim, there is no grace in Torah. A more accurate translation of this verse should read, "The definition of sin [or the law defining sin] came through Moses..." John's usage of nomos, here, can only refer to the specific commandments themselves, and not to the Torah as a whole. Remember, the Torah is MUCH MORE than just commandments. It is a revelation of God's heart revealed through both commandments and stories of mercy, grace, and judgment.