The Little Things

Now that I have a little time, I want to go back and post about a topic that was on my heart 2 weeks ago. I seem to be having the same conversation with many different people and decided I had to state my case as it were, so even if you've heard it before bear with me. The topic is broadly about Torah observance, but very specifically about eating clean and unclean foods. To address this, I'll have to post the verses from Matthew 5 that I have posted so many times before...

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

I don't remember reading that verse when I was 'churched'. I certainly never heard a sermon about it. When I ran across it in my attempts to prove that the law was done away with, I was stunned silent. There it is as clear as day: it is not done away. Everything has not been fulfilled, heaven and earth have not passed away, not a jot or a tittle are gone. Yet I still hear so many arguments about how unimportant these words really are so long as our "hearts are right". But I want to know how blatant disregard of the words of the Messiah can coincide with a right heart. We are told he did so many things that the world couldn't hold the books, yet he made sure these words were canonized. Apparently they are important.

I do agree that one will not lose their salvation based on eating the wrong foods. But he doesn't say it is a salvation issue at all- it is a matter of how great a servant you are. Don't believe me? read this:

"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." Luke 16:10

What we eat does matter because it is one of the 'small' things. If we cannot be trusted to obey in the little things, how can we be trusted to obey in the bigger things? If someone worked for you and could not wash the dishes properly, would you then give him the job of washing your fine china? You wouldn't because he has not proved that he can be trusted.

I also quite often hear the following verse as an answer to why someone continues to eat that which is unclean:

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." Romans 14:4

First, I want to know why this verse only works one way. If it does imply that someone can be convicted in his own heart that pork is OK, why then does it not cover me from attack by believers who call me legalistic, a judaizer, self-righteous, and deluded? It is OK to judge the servant who obeys but not the servant who does not? Secondly, this verse is taken out of context. The discussion is about those who chose not to eat meat at all because of the issue of foods that may have been offered to idols in the marketplace. These verses in no way cleanse that which the Father called an abomination.

As to the argument that "I do not feel convicted about that issue" my question is whether they feel convicted about anything Yah says. Does the Holy Spirit really have to come down and personally invite you to obedience? If you feel in your heart that abortion is OK, does that negate the Word? Feelings and convictions can be a dangerous thing- test every spirit. Of course Satan would love to 'convict' us of our freedom from the law. Personal convictions have to line up with the Word or they are FALSE SPIRITS!!!!!!

One of the students in my homeschool co-op class came to me months after we had a debate over unclean foods with this verse and said to me that since each of us should decide what is right, he decided pork was OK. I asked him if he had the same liberty to determine if adultery and murder were OK. I pointed out that he was using a verse out of context and he had no answer for me.

Another lady pointed out 1 Timothy 4 where it states that in the latter times people will come and teach that we cannot eat some foods (meaning me) and that Paul says here that all foods are consecrated by prayer. But if we look closer at what this passage actually says, her argument falls apart.

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

Firstly, the idea of some animals being clean and others not is NOT a doctrine of the devil- Yah himself determined this. Secondly it says they command others to abstain from meats- I don't command anybody to do anything, the Word does. I am just reminding. This is not some rule I made up myself. Third, the passage says that what God created to be food should be received with thanksgiving. He created things for different purposes and marks that which was clean from the beginning- Adam and Eve had to be covered by a blood sacrifice and He did NOT use a pig. Lastly, we see that the food we eat is sanctified by the Word and prayer. In other words, it is sanctified if it is in line with the Word and we pray protection against anything that might have been in contact with it that is unclean (I am speaking more of evil spirits, like the meats sacrificed to idols or animals used in witchcraft, etc.) If your food is listed as food in the Word and you pray when you eat it, thanking the Father for providing it and cleansing it from whatever you don't know, you're covered.

I want to list one more verse that I think leaves the matter without further wiggle room. In Isaiah 65-66 the L-rd tells us of things to come when he creates the New Heavens and New Earth. He speaks directly of those who pretend to be holy but who are not following his commandments...

"A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day."

"They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD. For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory."

These verses are not speaking of the Muslims- even they know better than to eat the unclean thing. These are people who call themselves holy, who claim to walk after the L-rd, and who are a smoke in his nostrils because of their thoughts and actions. They believe they are working the bigger things, but the truth is that they cannot follow even in the little things. They are strong-willed and try to tell the Master what they will and will not do. It is rebellion.

So I ask you that if you do eat pork and shellfish to examine the reason why. Is it because you truly believe in spite of these verses that the L-rd has changed his mind about what is clean and unclean? Is it because of your own lack of studying on the subject? I certainly don't argue those who's husband had made a declaration that they will continue to eat those foods, but I would ask them if they are secretly relieved, or are they praying that the Father will show their husbands the truth? If your husband were convicted that pornography was OK, would you be pleading with Yah to change his mind?

Going back to the passage in Matthew 5 for a minute I want to tell you of an example of how big this little issue can be. We decided to order Chinese one night and I was looking over the menu when the lady taking orders told me that it would be cheaper to order the family pack than so many individual entrees. I said no thank you because we do not eat pork. She asked why, and I told her that the Bible gives us a list of the foods our G-d approves and pork and shrimp are not included. She had never heard such a thing. I don't know how many believers she had taken orders from, but she had never heard of a Bible-believer abstaining from foods. I'll take my life in my hands here and say that those who professed to be followers and ordered pork were teaching this woman to break the law, and Yeshua warns that anyone who leads others astray will be called least in the kingdom. You cannot be called great when you cannot be trusted with the little things.

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

The Battle for the Bible

Are the Inspired Scriptures Enough?
Tim Hegg • TorahResource • March 2009

We’ve all had the experience of traveling to some place new and trying to find directions to a given location. With map or directions in hand, we look intently for street signs and road markers as we try to find our way. Then we come to an intersection where we must turn either right or left, and discover that our directions are not as specific as we had hoped. For a moment there is a bit of panic! People behind us are honking their horns, wishing we’d move. But which way should we go? Left or right? For a moment we feel lost, and glancing at the directions we’ve received, we wish they had been more specific!

As followers of Yeshua who have come to love and appreciate the Torah and are striving to live out the Torah in our daily walk of faith, we have come to just such a crossroad. There are voices encouraging us to turn this way or that but what we really need to know is this: which way will take us to our desired destination? That destination is nothing less than our ability as individuals, congregations, and communities to sanctify the Name of God upon this earth by walking in the footsteps of our Messiah, Yeshua. We do this by living out a sanctified life unto God and by exalting the risen Lord, Yeshua, in our daily activities—by demonstrating His will in our marriages and families, our relationships, our work, our entertainment, and even our relaxation.

The intersection at which we are now standing is one that will determine our way more than anything else, and it is this: is the Bible, the 66 books we have received as the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God sufficient to be our road map in all matters of faith and practice (halachah), or do we need something in addition to the Scriptures in order to sanctify God’s name in our world, to know His will for us—to know how we should live righteously in this present age?

In 2003 Mark Kinzer wrote a paper for the Hashivenu Forum entitled “Messianic Judaism and Jewish Tradition in the 21st Century: A Biblical Defense of ‘Oral Torah’” in which he argued that the written Torah is not sufficient in and of itself, but that the Oral Torah, the compiled traditions of the Sages throughout the ages, are also necessary for discerning God’s will. In Kinzer’s book Postmissioinary Messianic Judaism (Brazos, 2005), he reiterates and expands on what he had written in the Hashivenu Forum. At the beginning of this chapter, under the sub-heading The Insufficiency of the Written Torah, he makes this bold statement (p. 236):

Is the written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how to live as individuals, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundational and indispensable, it is not sufficient. The Torah requires a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life.

This statement and the following pages that seek to substantiate it, are in concert with Kinzer’s overall purpose in the book, which is to find a way for Messianic Judaism (as he defines it) to be accepted within “wider Israel.” Obviously, a theological position that would give supremacy to the written Scriptures (including the Apostolic Scriptures) over the traditions of the Rabbis (the Oral Torah) could never be accept by Orthodox Judaism. But as Michael Brown has shown, rejection of the Living Torah (Yeshua) is the obvious key difference between so-called Messianic Judaism and present-day Orthodox Judaism, and this presupposes the rejection of the Apostolic Scriptures, which interpret the Tanach as prophesying about Yeshua as the true and long-awaited Messiah.(1)

Many of us who have read Kinzer’s work in the past were not overly surprised by his radical positions, and felt the critiques of his book that appeared shortly after its publication had sufficiently shown its shortcomings. What is alarming now, however, is that his position on the insufficiency of the Scriptures is gaining acceptance among other messianic ministries. In recent dialogs I have heard messianic leaders voice the opinion that God gave to Israel the responsibility and authority to be the judge, protector, and definer of the commandments contained in the Scriptures. That means that Kinzer’s view of the insufficiency of Scripture is gaining traction among an increasing number of messianic teachers, for if Israel is to be the definer of the commandments, it means that a person cannot know how to obey God’s commandments unless he or she consults the traditions of Israel. Or to put it another way, if Israel has been given divine authority to define how the commandments are to be obeyed, it means that the Oral Torah, the traditions of the Sages (in all of their diversities) are to be received as having some measure of divine authority.

If that position is not alarming to you, it should be! For if divine authority is accorded to the Oral Torah (which is the position of rabbinic Judaism since ancient times([2]) as God’s will for how the commandments are to be obeyed, then your Bible is not enough. You’ll need to start studying the Mishnah, Talmuds, Midrashim, and ultimately the Shulkan Aruk in order to find out exactly how to obey God. Of course, when you do, you’ll discover that there is no such thing as “the Oral Torah.” Instead, you’ll find out that there are actually as many “Oral Torahs” as there are Judaisms.

However, when Paul wrote to his disciple, Timothy, he reminded him about the sufficiency of Scripture, the very Scriptures that had led him to faith in Yeshua:

… that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua. (2Tim 3:15)

For Paul, salvation consists in far more than having one’s sins forgiven. Salvation also includes sanctification, becoming conformed to the person of Yeshua—walking as He walked. And Paul states that the “sacred writings,” are able to give wisdom that leads to this salvation.
He then goes on to write:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2Tim 3:16–17)

When Paul speaks of the Scriptures, he’s talking about the written Torah, not the Oral. And he makes it clear that the Written Scriptures are “profitable” for reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. The Greek word translated “profitable” is ophelimos which means “good,” “beneficial,” “useful.”

Then note what Paul writes in regard to the use of the Scriptures: “that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” In English, the word “adequate” seems minimalist, that it is enough to get by. But that is not what the Greek word means that lies behind this translation. The word is artios and means “to being well fitted for some function, complete, capable, proficient, i.e., able to meet all demands.”(3) The NIV has a better translation: “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” For Paul, the Scriptures are absolutely sufficient to train the follower of Yeshua in living out every mitzvah (good work).

Surely the rabbinic literature, as well as the Pseudepigraphal and Apocryphal writings, are valuable for historical data and backgrounds to early Judaisms and Christianities, and they often contain valuable insights into the Scriptures themselves. But they are, like other commentaries, the thoughts and writings of men and women. They are not the inspired Scriptures, and they do not carry divine authority as do the Scriptures. Marking this distinction, between what is divinely authoritative and what is not, is paramount to maintaining a biblically based, Yeshua centered, Torah observant life of faith.

So when you start hearing teachers giving credence to the rabbinic writings or even to early Christian documents (e.g., Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Apostolic Constitutions) as though they are authoritative or give us the definitive interpretation of the Scriptures, beware! If you are told that your obedience to God’s commandments is not complete unless your halachah conforms to this rabbinic dictum or that rabbinic tradition, watch out! You are being led down a slippery slope that ends in submission to the traditions of men as having equal authority with the Scriptures. Rather, like the Bereans of old, who “received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so,” put everything you hear against the infallible word of God. What conforms to the Scriptures, accept; what does not, reject. Let the word of God be your sole authority for knowing what pleases God. A person determines if a stick is crooked by putting it next to a straight stick. Let the Bible be your straight stick.

Yeshua Himself warned His disciples and us about how the traditions of the elders could set aside the very commandment of God (Matt 15:3). In doing so, He was not negating all of the traditions of the elders, for it is clear that He followed many of these traditions and taught His disciples to do so as well. But what He did teach was that the traditions of the elders must be subservient to the word of God—the traditions do not have divine authority in and of themselves. Therefore, the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are to be the final authority in all matters of faith and halachah.

Bucer’s words contain a sobering contemplation for us: “A man is rarely to be found, who pays an excessive attention to human inventions in religion, who does not put more trust in them than in the grace of God.” Let it not be so of us! Let us cling to God by faith in His Messiah, Yeshua, and prize the inspired Scriptures as worthy above all other literature to lead us in the paths of righteousness for His Name sake.

--------------------------------------
(1) Michael Brown’s paper, “Is a Postmissionary, Truly Messianic Judaism Possible?” is available at:
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/Read/Entries/2008/12/11_IS_A_POST-MISSIONARY_TRULY_MESSIANIC_JUDAISM_POSSIBLE.html

(2) See the opening of Pirkei Avot.

(3) BDAG, ad. loc.

Fractured Word: Part IV

Identifying ourselves with the Jews is for some people a terrifying idea. After all, they reason, the Jews are the ones who killed Yeshua. But that is not the real root of the problem (and PS everyone who ever sinned, which is all of us, are responsible for the death of the sacrificial lamb). Replacement theology is not even the heart of the matter, but rather a result of it. The real issue is that throughout history people have despised the Israelites. Adonai told them this would happen and it was a direct result of their hatred for Him. The Jews, as his chosen ones, are the scapegoat for that hatred.

This is why, despite the fact that we still keep the majority of the Torah laws, the ones that were seen as specifically setting the Jews apart from their neighbors are the first thrown out. These include the celebrating the Feasts of the Lord (and they are called that, not the feasts of the Jews), dressing so as to be immediately recognizable as part of the elect, and the behaviors that set apart the chosen by what they do or don’t do.

The heresy that we should try to assimilate into society so as not to be instantly recognizable comes from misinterpreting Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9 that he became like the people he was trying to win in order to convince them. What he is saying is that he put himself in their mindset so as to understand what it was they would argue against. It makes no sense for Paul, an apostle, to ‘become’ a sinner in behavior in order to convince sinners to repent. He was merely considering the position of each person so as to know what would speak to their hearts.

Never are we told in all of scripture to be like the world. Yet the excuses abound- to make us more approachable, to show that believers can still have a ‘fulfilling life (as if salvation wasn’t a million times more fulfilling than the latest fashions), to exhibit our freedom in Christ to do as we wish. As we read before, we are not free to do as we wish. We have died to the law of sinful nature to become SLAVES of righteousness. We are not told to be covert in our evangelism but to be BOLD. Scriptures tell us specifically to come out and be separate.

“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” 2 Corinthians 6:17

Wow- not only are we supposed to be separate, we are also supposed to not touch that which is unclean. How do we know what is unclean? If you search the word ‘unclean’ at Biblegateway, you will find a list of 8 pages of passages. The first 6 are from the Torah, where Yah tells people what is appropriate and not appropriate for them as His people. The New Testament passages that discuss uncleanness refer back to the OT passages!!!!! The word used for unclean here is akathartos, which is translated as religiously defiled. We don’t have a New Testament list of what things are religiously defiled, but we do have an Old Testament list, and a note from Paul about that Old Testament list:

“…thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Too often we look at what the Father gave as a gift to the Chosen People and agree that it is full of wisdom, but refuse to admit that it is forever because then we have to align ourselves with the Jews who observe it. As I was writing this, the perfect example of what I mean was brought to my attention. In the latest issue of No Greater Joy magazine, Michael Pearl discusses the dangers of genetically modified foods. I completely agree with his statements that they should not be used as food. What threw me for a loop was his backing from the Word for this premise that genetically modified anything is a sin because it is changing Yah’s original design. He uses the Old Testament! As could be predicted, he starts in Genesis and how we were made in the image of G-d, who made the plants to be perfect food for us (there was no sin, which meant no death, so we did not eat meat then). But then he goes to the Torah and quotes the prohibitions against sowing diverse seeds in a field and breeding two kinds of cattle together. If the law has been done away with, how can we be guilty of sinning by breaking it? Yah did not create things a certain way until the redemption of man and then plan on us changing the DNA of what he created. He made things perfect in his wisdom, and by changing them we are telling him we are wiser than he.

If these laws still apply, where do we draw the line? Well I would argue that we draw it right where the Word says to- the only Torah laws that are no longer binding are circumcision and sacrifices for sin. Yeshua himself said he did not come to abolish the law, he came to fulfill it, and until heaven and earth pass away we will not see the completion of the fallen state of man. So long as there is still sin, there must still be a law to convict of sin.

Yah has not abandoned the Jews in favor of the Gentiles- he has opened salvation to the Gentiles through the Jews:

“And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.” Romans 11:17-21

We are grafted into Israel, not the other way around. And we are warned that we better not act superior to the root of the tree.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” Romans 1:16

And Paul calls those who keep the commandments Jews, not Christians:

“Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

And judgment is reserved for those who call themselves Jews, but are not. Does this mean Christians who are trying to keep the law? Certainly not! As believers grafted into the root, we are now co-heirs with the believing Jews. We are adopted Jews because of the opening of the covenant. This judgment refers to those who are of the synagogue of Satan- those who claim to belong to the body yet do not according to the Word.

“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Revelation 2:9

“I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” Revelation 3:8-10

If we are to be grafted into a family, should we not take on the attributes of that family? Would an adopted child who is haughty and refuses to lower herself to the status of her adopted family been seen in the eyes of the L-rd as righteous? As for me, I am grafted into that family and gladly associate myself with it (though this is a thorn in the flesh of the non-believing Jew, just as it was intended to be in order to bring them to salvation). I gladly dress so as to be instantly recognized as part of the elect. I touch not the unclean thing because I want to be acceptable in the sight of the Father. I keep the Feast of the L-rd both as a reminder of what He has done for me and as preparation for the Feasts we will celebrate together in eternity. After all he has done for me, can I even begin to think that keeping his commandments is a burden? Heaven forbid!!!!

Let No Man Judge You

Tonight the kids were doing their daily Bible reading and they completed the book of Colossians. I felt the need to post this example as well, since it is quite often used to abolish the law.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh." Colossians 2:14-23

I just wrote about the fact that during the time of Messiah, criminals were crucified along side a list of their offenses that led to the death sentence. Yeshua was crucified for claiming to be the King of the Jews, and that was why the sign hung above him saying as much. This is what is meant by the list of ordinances that was against us being nailed to the cross, because he took on our sins and was crucified for them. This does not mean the Torah law was nailed to the cross- the word for ordinances here is cheirographon, which means record of debts. Our list of sins was nailed to the cross.

Further proof that this is not talking about abolishing the law of God is found throughout this book, starting in verse 8 where he opens this specific passage with a warning not to let men lead us astray with traditions and rudiments of men. In verse 15 he says that Yeshua exposed the doctrines of men as a fraud and triumphed over them, and that segues into verses 16-21 where specific examples are given of what those false doctrines might look like. He is not referring to the Torah laws, because he concludes this list by calling them "the commandments and doctrines of men"!!!!!!!!! Yah wrote the Torah, so he is clearly not referring to the OT here.

The very last verse in chapter 2 tells us without a doubt what we are discussing- the practices of worship different people adopted. Some fasted twice a week, some gave a specific amount to the poor on holy days, and some 'mortified' their bodies by abstaining from wine or rich foods on holy days. Paul is saying these isn't anything intrinsically wrong with these ideas, but that no man can tell us how to celebrate the Holy Days except the Lord. Let no man judge you doesn't mean we are all free to do what we want, but rather that we are only required to abide by the Word and not what others have added to it.

Take the time to read through this book and check the cross-references. It is much easier to see the stream of thought in the whole of the scriptures rather than fracturing the law into applicable and not applicable (though Paul already said this is not so in 2 Timothy 3:16).

Shalom B'Shem Yeshua!
Amy

O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Psalm 119:97

Those Foolish Galatians

In pretty much any discussion about keeping the law, Galatians comes to mind, and rightly so because Paul used very strong words with the Galatians believers. But is he really saying what most people think he is saying?

Unfortunately I don't have the time to devote to another full post on this topic, but I want to give a link to a very good study on the subject. This is again another good example of why an accurate translation of the scriptures is so important. The changing of the meaning of even a single word can cause great division in understanding.

In short, Paul tells the Galatians church (former pagans who were being deceived by the Gnostics to adopt pagan rites, the Rabbinical law, and some Christianity in disguise) that they make Christ of no effect if they rely on observing the law (big and little, meaning the traditions of the priests). I think we all agree on that. No one was ever saved by keeping the law (not even the Israelites of the OT). Salvation comes by grace through faith. But then Paul says clearly that it is not the law itself but our sinful nature that condemns us,

"Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Galatians 3:21

I also think we need to look outside this one book and see what the rest of scripture says about the law. Here are just a few:

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace" Ephesians 2:15

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Romans 7:12

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:13

We have not yet received the fullness of Christ, or we would be perfectly sinless. Therefore, we are still in need of laws. The difference is that before we had the Spirit in us, we had the written law to show us what sin was. Now that we are spirit-filled, he will write the law on our hearts (the same law as is evidenced by the number of times the apostles and the Messiah himself reference the Torah). He cannot write on the hearts of those who do not belong to him. The law was not created 430 years before Jesus, it was written down 430 years before Jesus. The law was in effect before that- how else would Cain have known that killing Abel was sin, how would Noah have known which animals were clean and unclean when he filled the ark, or how would Abraham have known that the sacrifice must be without blemish? The law was written down because the generations continued to fall away form the Father and were not passing the word onto their sons, who had turned to follow the idols of Egypt and were corrupted at heart. The law is a reflection of who God is, and that never changed from the very beginning when sacrifice was needed to cover the sin of Adam and Eve.

Fractured Word: Part III

"Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy." Exodus 20:8

Kids are taught the 10 Commandments very early in Sunday School. They are also taught that of the 10, this is the only one that no longer applies. How can some of the law apply and some of it not? I was taught that it is because Yeshua did not list the Sabbath when he recounted the commandments in the New Testament. One example of the 'partial retelling' is when the young man asked Yeshua how to inherit eternal life. (Note that he did not say “Say the sinner’s prayer, be baptized, and you’ll be free from the law”. Yeshua instructed him to keep the commandments. If he were about to abolish the law, would it be fair to send someone away with the instruction to keep the commandments? But that’s another topic)

“Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.” Mark 10:19-22

Yeshua did not say to keep the Sabbath here. Yet he also did not tell the man to have no other gods, to not use the name of the Lord in vain, or to not have any graven images. The law can be divided into two themes (as Yeshua did himself in Matthew 22) that of serving God and of serving man. If we love the Lord first and our neighbor second, the whole law is fulfilled because every one of the laws either instruct us in our relationship with the Father, or with our neighbor. Yeshua knew this man’s heart and that his problems stemmed from a lack of love for others. He reminded him of the commandments regarding his brother because while he was not outwardly breaking them, he was inwardly sinning by refusing to love and care for his brother, which was the point of the law. This is not a very good argument for abolishing the Sabbath.

Perhaps that is not the example you would use. Let’s look at Mark 2:27-28…

“And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”

If we back up a few verses, we see the Pharisees accusing Yeshua of breaking the law by eating grain plucked in a field on the Sabbath day. The Pharisees were trying to trap him, but they were doing it with traditions and not the law. If He truly were breaking the law, they would have had reason to arrest him. They followed him around looking for a reason and could find none. He was not breaking the law, but only traditions, which were made by man and therefore not holy, not binding, and not really common sense.

What he says is that the Sabbath was created to give us rest, not to make us fretful over what we are allowed and not allowed to do according to the rules of others. He does NOT say that we no longer need a Sabbath or that he (the one who authored the law from the beginning) is now abolishing the Sabbath. If Yeshua was himself breaking the Sabbath, He was not without sin and we are doomed because his sacrifice would count for nothing unless he was sinless. It is not the actual law that is in question here, but again the layer of traditions added to the law that made it a burden. He is not declaring that as Lord of the Sabbath he has the right to break it. He is saying that as Lord of the Sabbath he knows what the Sabbath is and is not. It makes no sense to tell the author of something what his own words mean.

I cannot find a single verse that back up the idea that the Sabbath has been done away with. Some believe, however, that rather than being abolished it has been moved to Sunday. The reasoning being that is that Yeshua was raised from the grave on Sunday, and that the apostles met together on Sunday, so obviously Sunday is now the Lord’s day. Let’s look at the resurrection first…

“And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.” Luke 23:56-24:3

There are two important things to consider about this passage. One is that they arrived early on Sunday and did not find his body. It does not say he was raised on Sunday. It says they rested on the Sabbath as per the commandments, and went early on the first day of the week and found him gone. Secondly, even if he were raised on the first day of the week, it doesn’t say therefore we now celebrate the Lord’s Sabbath on the first day of the week instead of the last. It makes no sense to rest on the first day of the week when we have yet to do the week’s work that would require rest. Yah did not rest on the first day of creation and then work the rest of the week. He created everything in 6 days, then rested from his work on the seventh day (his number of perfection). He did this before there was sin, so resting on the seventh day was not a result of sin.

Maybe it isn’t because he was raised on the first day of the week (since the Word does not say that) but rather the meeting together of the apostles on the first day of the week that tells us we ought to change the Sabbath. After all, many Christians refuse to shop or dine out on Sunday because they are requiring others to work on the Lord’s Day. Let’s look at those verses:

“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and smith unto them, Peace be unto you. John 20:19”

Well, this verse certainly doesn’t support the theory that we observe a Sunday Sabbath as demonstrated by the apostles because they were hiding from the Jews and did not even know that Yeshua was resurrected yet! They weren’t meeting together on the new holy day, they were in hiding, unsure of what to do next since their teacher was gone.

“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” 1 Corinthians 16:2

If we read this verse in context, Paul is instructing each man to set aside money (not collect it, which would give an implied meaning of their meeting together) on the first day of the week so that when he arrived there would not be need to come together and take up a collection. The idea of the collection plate is very new, as the example of the widow and her mite shows. Monies collected for the temple were not collected on a specific day, and they were placed in a box so that no one could know what another gave. That’s why the rich man had to make a big deal about his giving, because if he dropped it in the box, nobody would know it was his or how much he had given. So saying this verse supports a Sunday Sabbath because they were taking a collection is using the new to explain the old- it doesn't make sense.

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7”

This verse says they met together to break bread and Paul preached to them. It does not say they were worshipping or that it was the Lord’s Day or the New Sabbath (though note that in the verse before it they were still observing the feast of unleavened bread!) but simply that they met together and he used the opportunity to teach them. Maybe we are supposed to just read between the lines that the Sabbath has been changed to Sunday since they new believers did not worship on the Saturday Sabbath. Or did they?

“And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.” Acts 13:42

“And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” Acts 13:44

“And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.” Acts 16:13

“And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Acts 18:4

Perhaps, though, they were simply observing the Sabbath in order to reach the Jews (and, oddly enough, the Greeks as well) and once the church was established the new Sabbath was to take effect. Why, then, isn’t it any of Paul’s letters to the churches that the Sabbath was changed? They did not have copies of the New Testament because there was no such thing at the time, so they would not have been able to read between the lines that the Sabbath was now Sunday. And what about the future? Do we have any information about the Sabbath in the End Times or in Eternity?

From the book of Isaiah, regarding things to come on the great and terrible day of the Lord when his kingdom will be established forever in the New Jerusalem:

“Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.” Isaiah 56:1-7

“If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.” Isaiah 58:13-14

“For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” Isaiah 66:22-24

Fractured Word: Part II

Food and the restriction of it was the very first issue between man and Yah. Yah said not to, and man decided otherwise. Satan planted the seed that forbidding oneself from what was pleasurable was not truly what Adonai meant when he put man in the garden. Satan does the same thing today with the Word- planting doubt in the minds of men. Here are the examples….

In Mark 7, Yeshua has a confrontation with the Pharisees about the disciples eating without washing their hands. In their tradition, this meant they were unclean and thereby defiled the food they touched, making it unclean. Yeshua defends his apostles by saying the Pharisees are holding them to traditions, not law. He is not condemning the practice of washing the hands, but rather the enforcement of those traditions on the same level as the law created by the King of Heaven- in other words, pretending that man’s wisdom can be of equal weight to the Father’s. Now read verse 19.

Does your Bible say that by answering this, Yeshua declared all foods clean? If it does, you have a corrupted Bible. This verse was not in the original texts. By ‘contemporizing’ the Word, the devil has been able to slip in what he likes and eliminate what he wishes. If you have never studied it, do a search on the differences between the Alexandrian and the Antiochan texts. You will likely find many different opinions, but keep in mind 3 things as you read: 1.) Yah promised to preserve his word for us forever, so there has to be a right and a wrong set of scrolls if they differ so much, 2.) According to Romans 3, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of Yah (and where is Alexandria vs. where is Antioch?), and 3.) nowhere in scripture is Egypt spoken of in a good way, so why would the very Word be sent to Egypt? This slight of hand by the devil is the basis for most believers putting things in their mouths that the Father calls an ABOMINATION! He doesn’t say they aren’t really good for you, or that they have to be handled carefully to make them clean, HE SAID NO!!!!!! And once again, man has determined (based on the counsel of the devil) that Yah did not really mean that.

It is important to remember this key verse in Mark 7, because it will be reference point as we go through the other verses that are central to the question of whether we are still to separate clean and unclean foods. The next of which will be Acts 10 where Peter has a vision. In this vision he sees a sheet being lowered from heaven and hears the voice tell him to kill and eat. But what was on that sheet was a mix of animals that Peter called unclean or common. The voice says not to call what the Lord has made clean common. Many argue that it would seem pretty clear that the Father was sanctifying all meats here. But even after awakening from the vision, Peter did not understand it. He did not awake and understand that all foods were now sanctified. He did not understand the meaning of the dream until he went to the home of Cornelius, and the meaning that came to him was not that all foods were now declared clean. The meaning was that Yeshua had died to sanctify the Gentiles, too, and that the Jews were not to treat them as inferior. Yeshua did not die for animals, so how could his death sanctify meat? Yet that’s not the only lynch pin in this passage.

In verse 14, Peter declared that he had never eaten anything common or unclean. Peter was still observing the law! Surely if Yeshua had declared all meats clean back in Mark 7, this apostle who was himself the one chosen to preach to the Jews (Galatians 2:7) would have know about it. He was a constant companion of the Lord himself! So along with Paul we now have Peter keeping the law long after the resurrection.

Acts 15 is also commonly quoted as evidence that believers were not required to keep the law. When the Jews tried to force the issue of circumcision of new believers, the council in Jerusalem met to decide how to handle it. They wrote a letter to the new believers that said they would lay no heavier burden on them than to abstain from fornication, from blood, from strangled meats, and from meats offered to idols. But there are some major questions to ask if the interpretation of this verse says what it appears to at first glance. The first would be why the Jerusalem counsel had the authority to supersede the instructions to eh Messiah himself! If Yeshua declared all foods clean in Mark 7, why were these apostles creating new restriction on the believers? If all foods were now declared clean, that would include blood, foods offered to idols, and anything strangled, right?

It is also odd that we teach new believers not to steal, lie, murder, and a host of other things when this letter clearly says all they had to do was abstain form these 4 things. We must be missing something in this interpretation of the passage. We need to go back and examine the whole letter. If we read past the part where it lists the 4 things to abstain from, there is a verse that says “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” In other words, they would learn the rest as they went. Most of the new converts were coming out of pagan religions where ‘worship service’ consisted of strangling an animal, offering the meat to an idol, drinking the blood, and the fornicating with the temple prostitutes. This was their jumping off point, not the whole of their instruction.

How about these verses from Colossians 2:
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (16-17)
“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not); Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?” (20-22)

The first one seems to say that we ought not let anybody judge us for anything that we do, whether it be what we eat or what holidays we celebrate, but to understand it in context, we need to keep reading. The verses following that say that we are no longer subject to ordinances, but it says specifically those rudiments based on the COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN. Men did not make the law, Yah did. We are not following the laws of men when we observe the Torah. It also says that observing the Sabbath and new moon festivals ARE a shadow of things to come, not were a shadow of things that did come. They were still future events when this letter was written. If the law were done away with when Yeshua supposedly declared all foods clean in Mark, he would have written to them that those laws were a shadow of things that had already been fulfilled and no longer binding.

1 Timothy chapter 4 talks about food and the role it will play in the End Times. Paul warns here that false doctrines will circulate which will mislead people about their right to eat meat. The word used in the Greek is brōma, which means solid food and not specifically meats. When I read this verse, I think of all the different diet gurus who have rules which prevent people from eating eggs, milk, bread, and a host of other foods that they declare to be unfit for human consumption even thought the Word says otherwise. There are many such false doctrines running rampant through churches everywhere, and even prophets for profit who sell their own eating plans and supplements rather than the gospel.

Going further in, we find the exhortation expanded to say that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” (4-5)

We have two contextual clues to examine here. The first is where it says every creature of God. This could mean every creature God made, but what does it mean that the food is sanctified by the Word? Do we have to rub the Bible over our meats to sanctify them? Remember that this verse was written long after the resurrection, and is part of a set of letters in which the reader is told that ALL the scriptures are profitable for doctrine (and there was no New Testament at the time). The food is sanctified by the Word when it is in line with what the Word calls food. If we throw out the law and just use the New Testament to decide what to eat, this verse makes no sense. Nowhere in the epistles are we given instructions for sanctifying our food by scripture and prayer. The creatures of God listed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are those acceptable for sacrifice- the clean animals.

Finally, I want to go back to the Old Testament for a look at what Yah says about those who follow his ways. Contrary to false teachings, the whole of OT prophecy has not been fulfilled. We have yet to see the war of Ezekiel 38 or the Antichrist of Daniel’s vision. Isaiah also has prophecies in the back that have yet to be fulfilled. One of them, found in chapter 65, talks of the day in the future when He will judge the world and what He says about those whom he will accept and those he will not. In verse 4 we read that there will be those who do what is right in their own eyes, including eating the flesh of things the Father specifically called unclean, and yet these rebellious people would call themselves holy, and to Him they are a stench.

The Opposing View

As I tried to catch up on blog reading today I realized my friend Berean Wife has some recent posts about the topics I have been doing a series on. While hers is not a series, and we don't have side-by-side comparisons as we wrote our posts without knowing the other was doing the same, there are some verses discussed that are identical, so if you would like to read the other side of the topics regarding the Law, head on over.

I have learned that I do best when I write, then leave it for a while and come back to edit, so I will be posting the rest of the parts of this study as I get around to editing them. Thank you to all who expressed good wishes at seeing me back to blogging- it's great to be loved!!!!

Shalom,
Amy

Fractured Word: Part I

Ask anyone who believes we no longer follow the law if it is OK to commit adultery and murder, and they will look at you as if you have 2 heads. After the stunned silence, you will likely hear one of two explanations as to why we follow some of the law and not all of it- either that Yeshua reiterated the commandments that still apply, or that we are now only bound to follow the spiritual or moral laws. The problem with this argument, though, is that we are still being bound to a law, so their verses that say the law is abolished must either be inaccurate or completely off. If we are free from the law, we should not have to follow any part of it, right? I can’t find the verse that says we only follow the commandments that are repeated in the New Testament, but if someone else can, please explain to me then why Yeshua, Paul, Matthew, and the others constantly quoted from the Law and the Prophets? People asked what they should do or how they were to act, and they were referred to the Torah every time.

Take a look at a list of the 613 Mitzvah, or laws. I have to point out here that this is not a strictly scriptural list because it follows rabbinical interpretations, like no mixing meat and dairy, when the scriptures clearly teach against such a separation in Genesis 18:8. Still, it’s easier than going through and writing them all down yourself! Go through the list and see if you can pick out which ones are sticking issues with the church today.

First, we eliminate the ones where we offered sacrifice for sin as Yeshua was himself the once-for-all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:12). That is clear-cut and any believer in the Messiah can agree on that. But the easy part of it ends there.

Next we have to consider the sanctification procedures and temple instructions. There is debate about whether these are still in place, but the argument isn’t really important right now because we do not have a temple. Whether or not we should still offer incense or offerings, present ourselves in Yah’s house on Holy days, or make a vow (all of which Paul did and advocated in Acts), we cannot do any of them because we do not have a temple to do them in. These things were commanded to be done a certain way and time or not at all. It wasn’t a sin not to do them in itself, as David’s absence from Saul’s table when the new moon came demonstrates (Saul assumed he was unclean for whatever reason). There were times in the history of the Chosen People that they were either without a temple altogether, or were in captivity and could not get to the temple.

We have also specifically eliminated the need for circumcision, though many a Christian still does it with their sons for various reasons. The New Testament said it was not necessary as a sign of being grafted in, and that doing for the express purpose of trying to earn salvation through the law was blasphemous, but we are never told we are not permitted. In fact, Paul took Timothy and had him circumcised. So while we are not commanded to be physically circumcised, we are commanded to be spiritually circumcised, so this law has not been done away with but rather fulfilled through Yeshua.

There are several sections in the list of Mitzvah that reference how we should act toward others. Most of these are not specifically reiterated by Yeshua, but he speaks to the essence of them by saying that the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbors as ourselves. If we love our neighbors, we would not think of doing any one of these things to them, and we know that breaking any of these would be a sin. The same is true of the list of forbidden sexual practices. Yeshua did not go through this list, either, but we all know that each of them is a sin.

The agricultural commands are adopted by smart farmers today, once again proving the truth of the Bible's words even before people understood the reasons behind them. It makes sense not to cut down a tree that is bearing fruit, and I cannot think of an instance of anyone ever doing such a thing. In fact, when you purchase a home, having fruit bearing plants is a selling point. We have also learned that land needs to be allowed to lay fallow in order to keep it form being depleted. Usually the plot to be given a ‘Sabbath’ rest is turned over to pasture, which fertilizes it and allows the topsoil to settle and prevent erosion. We do not leave the gleanings for the poor since trespassing laws make it unappealing for them to come gather them, but we give them to shelters and groups who feed the poor. And the idea of working on shares comes right from Deuteronomy.

Lastly, when it comes to our appearances, conservative believers (and I don’t believe there can be any other kind, even just using the OT) still adhere to these commands. Women and men do not cross-dress in church meetings, piercings are seen as a distraction to our living visible witness, and even in ‘freedom in Christ’ churches tattoos are preached as taboo.

Really, when it comes down to it, there are very few of the ‘old laws’ that Christians do not follow today. Specifically, they include not eating unclean foods, observing a Saturday Sabbath, and dressing specifically in a way that identifies us as believers.

Why these? If some of the Word still applies and some does not, isn't the Word itself broken?

continued in Part II

The Law of Righteousness

As you know (or may not know) I am a fan of Ray Comfort and his method of evangelizing. I have also met him and he is very genuine. I do not know Ray’s full opinion on the law as it pertains to believers, but I want to talk about his approach in reference to a discussion going on in a few places on the net (probably more than I could count, but I meant on the blogs that I read). I do want to say, too, that I haven’t read the others’ posts yet because I don’t want to try answering their objections while trying to outline my own basic premise. So this isn’t an answer to what others have written-merely my own explanation.

I should first give a quick overview of how Ray’s approach works. Ray comfort, Kirk Cameron, and their School of Biblical Evangelism promote evangelizing by using the law. In other words, rather than give a person the ‘feel-good’ gospel in which there is no brokenness over sins, we ought to show them first the laws of Yah and how they are guilty of breaking them. If you were to ask someone if they were a good person, 99.9% of them would say yes. We all fancy ourselves good people, and often because we compare our lives with those around us. But what is the definition of a good person? So by going through a few of the Commandments, you will have someone who admits to breaking God’s law.

Only when the person understands that they are guilty will the gift of salvation mean anything. As an example, Ray talks about a boy who speeds through his hometown at 65 mph. The people are appalled and quickly pass a law making the speed limit 30 mph. When he comes through town again going 65 mph, he is cited for speeding and taken to court. The judge, his father, knows that justice calls for punishment regardless of their being related and fines the boy $3000 or imprisonment. The boy has no money and is carted off to jail. He is distraught. Later, the jail doors are swung open and the boy is told that his father has sold his own valuable possessions to pay the fine. The two embrace, weeping, and walk out of the jail with a new love and connection between them.

Ray’s counterpoint to the story is this: imagine the boy being pulled over and told that his father just sold his valuables to pay the boy’s $3000 fine. He doesn’t know what fine you are talking about because he doesn’t know he has broken the law. The gift of redemption means nothing to him (the way the feel-good gospel does to those who hear it) and he is not thankful because he has not faced the consequences of his wrongs.

Now, taking off from where Ray’s story stops, what would you think of the boy if he were in jail and his father came in and freed him because he had paid the cost for him, and the young man said “Gee, thanks dad. That’s was nice of you” and then proceeded out the door, into his car, and through town at 65 mph?

YET THAT IS THE VIEW MOST CHRISTIANS HAVE OF OBEYING YAH’S LAWS!!!!!!

For a list of reasons too long to go through here, many believers feel they are freed from the law. Nobody, ever, has been saved by the law. That is a misconception taken from the root of the ‘freedom in Jesus’ blasphemy. Yes, we are free in Jesus. But what does that freedom look like?

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Romans 6:16

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” Galatians 5:13

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Romans 2:13

“Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Romans 6:18

I was telling a friend that last weekend we watched The Ten Commandments. Charlton Hesston, as Moses, stood at the foot of the mountain with the law in his hands. The people grumbled that they didn’t need a law because now they were free. He answered them that there can be no freedom without the law. We know this to be true. We have many freedoms, but we wouldn’t really be free if the law did not restrain others from harming us. Imagine if someone’s idea of freedom was watching you burn alive, trapped in your house. The law is a protection.

As parents, we expect our children to obey us. What if your little one said to you “I don’t have to obey you because as your son, I am free from your rules”? As our children, we expect them to obey us. Their obedience does not make them ours any more than their disobedience would make them illegitimate. The obedience isn’t what makes us heirs- it is our reasonable service.

I’m not really sure, even after years of holding the ‘freedom’ view myself, what in the law is so terrifying to people. Obviously the sacrifices have been fulfilled in Yeshua. We cannot perform the purification rituals as we have no temple (BTW, there were periods in the history of the Israelites where there was no temple- does that mean they were lost as well?).

The next topic I want to consider are the few but common parts of the law that Christians stumble over.