EZEKIEL

 

and YHWH’s

 

 Judgment

 

 

for the

 

Good News

 

PEOPLE

 

 

 

VOLUME III

 

The Torah

 

 

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

 

 

Judgment for the

 

 

 Good News People

 

 

 

 

Volume III--The Torah

 

 

 

 

 

by

 

an unworthy servant

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you shall know the truth,

 

and the truth will make you free.

 

(John 8:32)

 

 

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho.  The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States.  Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

 

 

Volume III--The Torah 

 

 

CHAPTER                                                                              PAGE

 

 

      -                  Cover Page                                                                                                         1

 

      -                  Title Page                                                                                                             2

 

      -                  Contents                                                                                                              3

 

      -                  Publisher’s Preface                                                                                           5

 

 

Part K--The Torah 

 

      32               The Question of Law                                                                                         6

 

      33               The Definition of Sin                                                                                       21

 

      34               Acts 15                                                                                                               32

 

      35               Shaul and the Torah                                                                                       40

 

      36               Love and the Torah                                                                                          53

 

      37               The Need for Grace                                                                                         67

 

      38               Grace and the Torah                                                                                        81

 

      39               Examples in the Torah                                                                                    93

 

      40               Life and the Torah                                                                                            98

 

 

Part L--Change? 

 

      41               YHWH YESHUA on Change I                                                                     110

 

      42               YHWH YESHUA on Change II                                                                    118

 

      43               YHWH YESHUA on Change III                                                                   130

 

      44               YHWH YESHUA on Change IV                                                                  143

 

      45               Do Things Matter?                                                                                          151

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

 

 

Publisher’s Preface

 

Greetings!  The following presentation is volume three of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site. 

 

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world.  In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one. 

 

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material.  It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message! 

 

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1.  It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins:  left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers). 

 

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope. 

 

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers.  May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him.  Shalom (peace) to you and yours! 

 

an unworthy servant, Sukkot 2005 CE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 32--The Question of Law

 

 

The Old Testament Laws Carry Authority 

 

Statements in the prior chapters, on the fact that the Old Testament laws were authoritative in the New Testament, can provoke and upset many misinformed and ignorant Christians who have been so thoroughly mesmerized and indoctrinated by Churchianity as to believe that there must be something inherently wrong with “Moses” since his writings on the "law" were abolished and done away with. 

 

Some Christians even say that the law (the Torah in Hebrew) was imperfect and had to be terminated. 

 

And by all means, Christians habitually like to use the word bondage in virtually any discussion on the Torah.  This word bondage is a favorite word used by Christians to describe the Torah and the OT laws and instructions. 

 

The September 2000 “Destiny Letter” (p. 3), which will be addressed in a subsequent chapter, illustrates this Christian confusion by discussing Galatians 3:17 in the vein of the “laws given by Moses at Sinai (and the bondage they entailed).”  Can any honest person and student of the Book really look upon YHWH’s Word as bondage?  Yet, Christians do! 

 

The truth about Galatians 3:17 will be commented upon in some detail in a succeeding chapter and needs not be discussed here.  Suffice to say, the Apostle Shaul had far more brains than to write or communicate, in any instance, anything being wrong with YHWH’s OT.  As a minimum, he would never have used the word “bondage” to describe the Torah.  Only Christians are that foolish and uninformed. 

 

Though this Christian theology persists, actually, nothing could be further from the truth.  And if there was any basis of verity for such suppositions, then surely an honest person would have to raise some questions over those New Testament texts which were being used to discard or discredit the Old Testament. 

 

The whole basis and foundation of support for the New Testament hangs on the validity, authority and truthfulness of the Old Testament.  If there is something “wrong” with the Old Testament; then, of necessity, there is something wrong with the New Testament. 

 

In a word, there can be “no” valid New Testament without an Old Testament.  While the Old Testament can stand alone and not be dependent upon any other writings for existence or authority, the same thing cannot be said for the New Testament.  Hence, the New Testament means absolutely nothing (zero) without an authoritative, consistent, harmonious and truthful Old Testament. 

 

Whenever an ignorant and uninformed Christian attempts to damage, hurt, criticize or condemn the Old Testament, then that Christian person has effectively placed even more damage, hurt, criticism and condemnation (unknowingly) on the New Testament as well.  In a word, he is a hypocrite! 

 

 

Building on Earlier Foundations 

 

Although the Old Testament can stand upon its own merit for authority, status and validity, such a position cannot be attached to the New Testament, as just noted.  The New Testament is utterly attached to, and dependent upon, the Old Testament for its whole foundational support.  The New Testament is merely a continuation of information first broached in the Old Testament. 

 

An article on “The Flip Side,” in the Jan/Feb 2001 “Believer’s Advocate” (p. 3), suggested that the OT was a foundational, introductory segment which leads up to the NT in one continuous presentation.  So, when we read/study a book, should we start at the beginning or over in the middle of the book?  The answer is clear.  We start at the beginning.  So, why not do the same with the Scriptures? 

 

Thus, without the Old Testament, there is no basis for a New Testament.  The writings of Mattityahu, Mark, Luke, Yohanan, Kefa, Yakov, Yehudah and Shaul have meaning only because of the Old Testament.  Remove the OT and YESHUA, Mattityahu, Mark, Luke, Yohanan, Kefa, Yakov, Yehudah, Shaul and so forth mean zero. 

 

 

The Torah is First 

 

Carrying this one step further, it is also quite manifest that within the OT, the Torah (the books of Moshe--Genesis through Deuteronomy, known in Greek as the Pentateuch) is the foundational support for all of the later writings.  Without the Torah, the later prophets and writings have virtually little or no meaning whatsoever.  Consequently, it is the Torah in the OT which carries first and primary authority and status. 

 

All of the later OT books have their foundations and support from this legal and inspired Torah.  Yes, without the Torah, there really is nothing to follow.  The “rabbis” claim that the entire revelation of The EL’s truth is contained in the Torah, which is the most essential and fundamental revelation ever given to man. 

 

It is a truism that if a Scriptural doctrine or teaching is not found in the Torah, at least at an intimated level, then it is to be rejected (Av 5754, “Jezreel’s Call,” p. 1). 

 

In his “Commentary on the Torah” (p. xi), the previously mentioned Richard Elliott Friedman told about a gift from his “rabbi” of the Torah at his bar mitzwot.  On the first page, he read this inscription-- “Turn it over, and turn it over, because everything is in it.” 

 

Yes, everything of importance in truth, and everything to follow, seems to start in some way in the Torah.  Following the Torah, the prophets probably are next in authority and position and with the writings (Psalms, Proverbs, etc) coming in last in the OT canon. 

 

This hierarchy of the authority of the books in the Tanakh (the Torah first, the prophets next and the writings last) is well recognized within Judaism (Jan-Mar 2000 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 40).  If something in the prophets or writings seems to be in conflict with the Torah, the words of the Torah prevail in establishing doctrine and truth.  The Torah is the foundational test for all else to follow. 

 

 

Same in the NT 

 

Of course, there also is some system of hierarchy within the New Testament books.  The most important NT books, for foundational and historical support, have to be the so-called Gospels which build upon the Torah, prophets and writings of the OT.  Without these first books in the NT, and of course, the foundational support of the OT, the later epistles of Shaul, Kefa, Yakov, Yehudah and Yohanan mean little or nothing. 

 

Thus, if something in the NT seems to be in conflict with the Torah (first) or the Tanakh generally, then it must be rejected.  All Scriptures must be consistent and in harmony. 

 

And all Scriptural authority commences with the Torah first, the prophets second, the OT writings third, the historical NT books next, then the Acts and then the remainder of the NT. 

 

In “Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time” (p. 5), Darrell W. Conder outlines the prevailing Christian rule of interpretation as being that Christians read and interpret the OT by what the NT says.  The Christian view is that the NT is the foundation upon which the OT rests.  Conder goes on to outline the correct view as being that if the NT is authoritative, then it must rest upon the foundation of the OT. 

 

This writer agrees with Conder, but would qualify his conclusions slightly.  Christians interpret the OT, not on the basis of the NT; but rather, on the basis of what they think that the NT says and not on what it actually says. 

 

Manifestly, in Second Temple days, and evidently thereafter to modern times, the Jews have agreed upon the Tanakh (and particularly the Torah) as their basis of faith.  And of course, many so-called modern Jews disobey and violate the Torah.  But this sad reality does not alter the fact of the preeminence of the Torah among Jews--at least, among religious or observant Jews. 

 

Too, there was some disagreement in Judaism in Second Temple days on Tanakh interpretations.  But at least, there was Jewish acceptance of the basic writings then, and subsequently, as will be described in later chapters. 

 

But rather than accept the beginning premise of the OT (which should be the entire basis of their faith), Christians either reject or ignore the Tanakh and particularly the Torah while accepting and agreeing among themselves only on the validity and presence of the NT. 

 

 

A Real Paradox 

 

Though Christians demean and ignore the Tanakh, in any attempt to define righteousness, there is an interesting remark in the NT which goes to prove conclusively how wrong Christians are in this attitude of rebellion. 

 

This powerful indictment was brought out by Rick Aharon Chaimberlin, in a remark in the Oct-Dec 1999 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 34).  Chaimberlin noted that early on in the New Testament, the Book says that the priest Zekharyah and his wife Elisheva were righteous, walked in the commandments and ordinances of YHWH and were blameless before The MOST HIGH (Lu 1:6). 

 

Chaimberlin then asked this question:  How could they be righteous since they were in this state long before YESHUA was even born and before He died for sin?  Going on, how can they be blameless while walking in the commandments and ordinances of YHWH in the OT?  Obviously, Christians can’t have it both ways with Zekharyah and his wife in about the period 7-6 BCE. 

 

 

Christian Confusion 

 

Naturally, Christians have gotten it all wrong, while at least the Jews start off on the right track with the basic acceptance and support for the Tanakh and especially the Torah.  Christians can never understand the real world.  The NT means absolutely nothing or zero without the OT.  Everything in the NT depends upon the presence, authority and truth of the OT. 

 

Since Christians identify themselves as NT Christians, they have largely rejected, or at least theologically ignored, the presence, value and authority of the OT.  Thus, their world of understanding, thinking and reasoning has been seriously warped and distorted.  The result has been a surfacing of pandemonium and confusion throughout Christianity for the last 2,000 years.  Some would call this Babylonian confusion! 

 

In terms of Scriptural law, Christian writer Stephen E. Jones wrote in an article on “The Purpose of Law and Grace” (Sep 1998 “Destiny Editorial Letter,” p. 1) that “There are a large number of ‘New Testament’ Christians who simply dispose of Old Testament law in favor of what they think is a new law of the New Testament.  But the New Testament assumes that people already are familiar with the Old.” 

 

The point Jones made is that Christians are badly misinformed on the question of law in the Scriptures.  As he indicated, the NT starts out on the premise that people are already familiar with the OT law.  Jones has it right and this fact will be brought out in later comments on the law.  For a fact, the vast bulk of Christians have no concept at all about the Torah--other than that it is something bad, done away with and not for them. 

 

It is an absolute rarity in Christendom to find any person who has read, studied, mediated upon and attempted to obey virtually any OT law--unless that law has a clearly discernible presence in the NT. 

 

Christians typically never read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy.  They may read a portion of Genesis on occasion.  But that is the general extent of it, unless they are forced into checking something otherwise in the Torah while studying the NT. 

 

 

The Basis of Law 

 

The word Torah is a Hebrew word found in the OT (Deut 33:4,10).  It is commonly translated as law, although some scholars (especially Jewish savants) suggest that it probably means something greater than just law.  Some Messianic believers actually suggest that it is both the OT and the NT (Jan/Feb 2001 “Believer’s Advocate,” p. 3).

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 15, p. 1235) gives its real meaning as teaching, doctrine or instruction.  In the OT, it seems to typically refer to the Pentateuch or the five books of Moshe (Gen--Deut), although parental directions to their children are also called torah (Prov 1:8; 6:20; 31:26).  Thus, per Proverbs, the Scriptural definition of the word “Torah” seems to be the instructions and teachings of parents for their children. 

 

With this background, it is easy to surmise that The MOST HIGH, in the role of Ha AV (the “Father,” per the English), has issued His instructions, teachings and directions to His children in His Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy).  Therefore, the Torah is profound, paramount and first for YHWH’s followers (in their capacity of being His children). 

 

While the OT links Torah essentially to the books of Moshe, Judaism has developed a theory that there are, in fact, two laws or Torahs (Torot in the Hebrew, plural)--one being the Written Torah (she-bi-khetav) and the other being the Oral Torah (she-be-al-peh) which supposedly also came down from Moshe orally, and is today found in the Jewish Talmud (to be assessed in later chapters). 

 

Religious Jews support this argument by claiming that the Torot in Genesis 26:5 refer to both (Judaica, v. 15, p. 1236). 

 

After the Babylonian exile, the Aramaic word “dath” was sometimes used to describe the Torah and various man-made laws as well.  It is also true that English translators on rare occasions translated a few other words as law (like mitzwah, choq, chaqaq and mishpat, all to be discussed later).  But in the main, the word law in OT English translations refers to Torah. 

 

In the Greek Septuagint, the Greek word “nomos” (meaning law in English) was used to translate the Hebrew Torah (200 out of 220 times, “Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,” v. iv, p. 1046). 

 

In the Greek NT, nomos was also generally used in references to the Torah, as well as man-made laws.  To ascertain whether the subject nomos was the Torah or some other definition, a study of the contextual use is mandatory (although most NT uses of nomos are clearly in reference to the Torah). 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 1480) makes the case that in the Pentateuch, legal and moral norms are not distinguished by any definitional criteria.  Hence, morality and the Torah are virtually synonymous in the Hebrew culture. 

 

The just cited Stephen E. Jones adds that “All laws and systems of law are religious in origin.  They are inescapably religious.  This is so because laws establish standards which define justice and morality for society, and the source of law in any society is its god. 

 

“If a society makes is own laws, based upon human reasoning, then Humanism is its religion, and man is its god.  If its laws are made by a single ruler, then he is the highest god of that society.  If a nation’s laws are made by a group of people, then we can say that this group of legislators are the gods of that society.  The source of law is the god of any society” (Sep 1998 “Destiny Editorial Letter,” p. 1). 

 

This reality in any discussion of law is important to grasp.  Evidently, all laws, by design, are religious laws offering standards of morality and justice.  The law maker assumes the posture of deity.  Later chapters herein will assess humanism.  For now, it is important to tie humanism and humanistic laws to so-called human beings, in contrast to YHWH’s law. 

 

 

Christian Attitudes 

 

Some Christians have come to realize that sin is the transgression of the law (the Torah, I Jo 3:4, per the KJV).  In order to support their overall opposition to the totality of YAH’s Torah, a rare few Christians choose to recognize and validate the Ten Commandments on the premise that the Ten Commandments alone constitute “YHWH’s law,” and not the collective commands outlined in Genesis to Deuteronomy. 

 

Some accept the Ten Commandments and go another step or two up to accept one or more of The EL’s other stated laws.  For example, the Seventh-day Adventists essentially accept the Ten Commandments and also the clean meat laws. 

 

Many of the Sardis groups, to be discussed later, go one more step up and accept the annual feast days.  To justify their rebellious pick and choose decisions, many Christians try to pretend that there are two sets of laws in the Tanakh. 

 

They say that one law is the moral law and the other is the ceremonial law.  Any laws Christians choose to keep, they identify as moral laws.  Any laws that they don’t want to keep, they label as ceremonial/ritual laws done away with.  Of course, per the Word, this is blatant nonsense.  The Seventh-day Adventists, in particular, follow this method. 

 

This allows Christians, like the Adventists, to pick and choose which commands they are willing to obey and which they can reject.  While it is true that the sacrificial system, and perhaps even the tabernacle, were added after the giving of the law defining righteousness, and following the actions of the people into sin, this in no way constituted a second law.  All of the Torah is one law (or Torah). 

 

Another popular Christian trick is to try to claim that the OT laws (the Torah) are the “laws of Moses,” as if he invented them for the Israelites.  Again, this is blatant nonsense and indeed stupidity.  The Torah reflects Moshe’s conclusion on his work, as a scribe, when he noted that he had not done this work of his own mind (Num 16:28). 

 

Of course, Moshe worked for and served The HIGHEST.  So any misinformed or ill-advised Christian wishing to argue, pick at and contend with the Torah needs to be at least half way honest and attribute the law in its totality to YHWH, and quit blaming Moshe for it. 

 

But the historic Jewish position is that every word of Genesis to Deuteronomy constitutes YHWH’s Torah or law.  Clearly, this is the Scriptural position as well.  Every commandment to Yisrael, in the collective or generic sense, in those first five books, constitutes a law to be obeyed.  The disobedience of any of those laws becomes sin. 

 

It is absolutely amazing that a few ignorant, uninformed and rebellious Christians will actually muster enough faith and Scriptural understanding to acknowledge that sin is the transgression of the law (I Jo 3:4); but then never study the law (Genesis through Deuteronomy), know little or nothing about the law, and manifestly refuse to be corrected by and obey the law. 

 

Of course, some Christians claim to obey the law and understand it, in the context that transgression of the law is sin.  But they have no appreciation or awareness at all about what all “the law” encompasses, and most seem little interested in finding out.  The law is correctly Genesis through Deuteronomy.  It is not just the Ten Commandments.  It is not just the Ten Commandments plus the food laws. 

 

It is not just the 10 Commandments, the food laws, the feast days and a few other laws from the Torah, as different Christian people like to pick and choose which they will obey.  No.  It is not a game of pick and choose which laws an individual wants to obey.  The law is not determined on the basis of what some person or persons want it to be. 

 

 

Be A Doer and Not a Judge 

 

The NT book of Yakov addressed this Christian perception in an interesting fashion by drawing a parallel between speaking evil of, or against, a brother and (Greek kai meaning even) judging a brother in the context of speaking evil of, or against, the law, even (Greek kai) judging the law (Jas 4:11).  Any person trying to judge the law (by speaking evil of it or against it) cannot be a doer of the law or be obedient to it. 

 

Of course, the believer is to be a doer of the law and not a judge in the process of accepting and/or deciding the legal status of the law by speaking against it or any part of it.  Actually, this is a common Christian practice.  Almost all Christians speak against, or oppose the totality of the law completely; howbeit, some few may accept the Ten Commandments and/or several of the individual laws like eating clean meats, etc. 

 

This conclusion by Yakov may be a little complicated.  But the point is that individual people (Christians) have not been granted authority to determine the legal status of YHWH’s law.  They can’t act to reject law and decide what is not law, nor can they decide which laws are valid to be obeyed and which are not.  The truth is that The EL has established His Torah and declared all of it legal and binding for all of His people. 

 

YAH’s people are expected only to be doers of the law.  Yet, Christians inevitably judge the law by being opposed to all of it, in context, all the while that some of them claim to obey the law.  True, those claiming to obey the law and recognize that sin is the transgression of the law may obey some part of the law (like the Ten Commandments, etc).  But they will not accept and obey all of the Torah/law. 

 

Christians, apparently without exception, are fundamentally opposed to the overall Torah.  They oppose it.  They speak against it.  They reject it.  And they end up doing precisely what Yakov wrote about.  They become people against the Torah when they should be doers of all of the Torah.  Therefore, they are classic hypocrites. 

 

The Torah is The ELOHIM’s will and choice of what constitutes righteousness.  His Torah encompasses “all” of the generic laws in Genesis through Deuteronomy.  Why in the world won’t Christians believe and accept the clear and indisputable truth of the totality of YHWH’s Torah? 

 

Why do Christians inevitably choose to try to limit YHWH’s laws to just a few of the ones that they personally find acceptable?  Why won’t they study, contemplate, reflect upon and obey all of YHWH’s laws?  Why do they choose to ignore them totally in the collective sense--beyond just the few that they are willing to accept? 

 

 

The Jewish Position 

 

Later chapters will examine the Jewish Talmud.  There is no intent presently to examine it in any detail.  But the point must be made that much of the Talmud has been prepared on the premise that the Scriptures failed to provide the needed details and explanations on the Torah, so that oral traditions had to be codified as law to guide religious Jews. 

 

In other words, religious Jews in Second Temple days, and soon thereafter, began developing traditions and traditional approaches of interpretation of the law, to define, delineate and establish each aspect of its fulfillment or obedience to the enth degree, dictating no discretion or personal interpretation in any consideration of fulfillment. 

 

The Jewish “Pesikta De-Rab Kahana” (p. 223), to be described in the next chapter, teaches that the Ten Commandments alone are not sufficient to guide Yisrael, and that innumerable laws precede and follow the Ten Commandments.  While the case can be made that the Talmud is at issue here, it is also a fact that the Torah itself outlines a whole host of other laws and instructions which are necessary to fulfill the Decalogue. 

 

Virtually all Christians would argue strongly with this historic Jewish position and make fun of it, and belittle it.  But there is much merit for it, and particularly in terms of what the Torah says. 

 

Actually, historic Jewish sages have studied the laws in the Pentateuch and have identified some 613 express commands (mitzwot in the Hebrew) in the Torah, which apply in the generic sense to Israelites.  The best current compilation of these famous 613 mitzwot is outlined in “Maimonides, The Commandments,” as translated by Dr Charles B. Chavel, and published by “Soncino Press” of New York and London.   

 

The great Jewish scholar Maimonides lived almost a thousand years ago and made this codification.  He found 248 positive commandments requiring specific acts and duties of the faithful, and 365 prohibitions or negative commands.

 

As suggested in a former chapter, Scripturally, a positive command usually (and possibly always) seems to take precedence over a negative command--if there should be a conflict between the two (clearly suggested by John 7:22-23). 

 

Of course, some of these commandments focused on the priesthood, the Temple and Temple operations and therefore have no application in the present environment in the absence of the Temple.  But otherwise, all of the commands cited deal with individual personal duties and acts of righteousness by the individual believer. 

 

In his book “YESHUA” (p. 13), Ron Moseley makes the case that 170 of the 613 mitzwot in total deal expressly with moral and ethical questions.  Subsequent chapters herein will cite a whole host of laws that deal with charity, prohibiting gossip and slander, and all kinds of things which Christians would be shocked to know are present in the OT. 

 

 

Similar to Man-made Laws 

 

This writer takes the stance that the Ten Commandments are express commands, which are higher or broader in prominence and application than the other commands.  All of the other commands are in the nature of statutes (Hebrew choq), judgments (Hebrew mishpat) and ordinances (Hebrew chuqqah).  However, all are sometimes called commandments (mitzwot) in terms of the Torah. 

 

In the Book (Deut 10:4; Ps 119:172), the so-called Ten Commandments generally are referred to as the Ten Words (Hebrew davar) or even the Ten Things (per an article on “Work’s Righteousness,” in the Oct-Dec 1999 “Hebrew Roots,” p. 8).  This definition distinguishes these ten from the other commands (the mitzwot) that go on to make up the total 613 commandments, mentioned above.  

 

This breakdown in law resembles what one finds in American law.  The Ten Words are a type of supreme Constitutional law.  The statutes are like legislative (statutory) laws.  Judgments are like court decisions and judicial law.  Ordinances are like local ordinances that have limitations in time or area.  YHWH’s ordinances typically focus on the Temple operation. 

 

Since the constitutional law is expressed in the Ten Words or Commandments, this was/is the basic law of Yisrael.  All other laws (statutes, judgments and ordinances) link to and have their existence, to properly provide interpretation, application and obedience of the Ten Words/Commandments. 

 

These other laws define, and make possible, the correct and proper obedience and application of the Ten Words/Commandments.  Even the statutory laws, which impose penalties (such as death, a beating, restitution, etc), are necessary to implement and obey the overall law system.  The same is true in US law. 

 

For example, the seventh commandment says to not commit adultery.  Any number of statutes and judgments go on to define marriage, sexual relations and establish what constitutes adultery.  The MOST HIGH outlines statutory laws to prescribe all kinds of things associated with marriage, adultery and so forth.  These laws are necessary in order to properly keep the basic commandment. 

 

In the OT, the prophets followed up and offered judgments defining the essentials on this command as well (the same thing happens in man-made jurisdictions, where courts render judicial judgments [judicial laws] defining constitutional and statutory laws).  In the NT, YESHUA, Shaul, Kefa and others offered numerous judgments about marriage, adultery, duties of the husband, wife, etc. 

 

In order to understand and keep the seventh commandment, one needs to understand all data on this subject, and obey all of the various statutes and judgments associated with it.  The point is that there are a host of statutory laws and OT and NT judgments which act hand in hand, to define and clarify the requirements of the Ten Words. 

 

Moshe explained this relationship in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 (previously cited) when he remarked that obedience of the statutes and judgments is necessary in order to keep the (basic ten) commandments (the mitzwot in the Torah). 

 

 

613 in the OT and 1,050 in the NT 

 

Incidentally, the Apr-Jun 2000 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 32) had an article by Rick Chaimberlin on “The Holy Spirit” which quoted “Dake’s Annotated Bible” (p. 313-316).  “Dake’s” said that the NT contained 1,050 commandments (correctly judgments or instructions).  Chaimberlin added that this is astounding since the NT is only one third of the size of the OT. 

 

These 1,050 NT commandments are reportedly listed in “Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible on pages 313-316, as a matter of information (Apr-Jun 2003 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 19). 

 

In view of the constant complaints from Christendom about the 613 mitzwot in the Torah, one wonders how it is possible that Christians can pass over or make light of the 1,050 laws (judgments) in the NT (which actually amplify and build upon the 613 OT mitzwot).  If the law was done away with, what about the 1,050 judgments in the NT?  Do these judgments stand? 

 

If they stand, then they must stand in relation to the 613 mitzwot in the Torah.  Manifestly, they do not stand alone.  Therefore, they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, separate and apart from the foundational support of the Torah.  This same reasoning applies to the numerous prophetic judgments in the OT prophets.  They, too, only have meaning because of the foundational support of the mitzwot in the Torah. 

 

Upon learning of these 1,663 mitzwot, a friend wrote me a letter and asked how one can keep those laws if he does not know them--since they are not laid out one after the other in the Scriptures?  Well, the truth is that all of these mitzwot are defined and laid out fairly clear in the Word, in the vein of commandments of a generic nature.  They are in the Book, and can be known through study and obedience. 

 

Importantly, the Tanakh presents these mitzwot in the vein of “do and do not” for the people of Yisrael.  In the New Testament, YESHUA and the Apostolic leaders outlined their judgments (in the form of clarifications and further determinations) upon the 613 mitzwot of the OT.  These NT commands are couched in the role of “do” or “do not” for Messianic believers (out of generic Yisrael). 

 

Anyone who thinks that the 1,663 laws in the Scriptures are too many should pause and look at the number of laws Americans face every day without a whimper.  Every year, the Congress passes 6,000 laws and presidents write tens of thousands of regulations (carrying the force of law).  At all government levels, Americans face daily at least something well over 100,000 laws (with 20,000 gun laws alone). 

 

 

Why? 

 

A good reason for these various Scriptural statutes, judgments and edicts defining, explaining and clarifying YHWH’s basic commandments has been demonstrated over the past few years in the actions and mentality of the former elected leader of Christian America--President William Jefferson Clinton. 

 

Clinton is a trained lawyer.  If there is one word that describes him fully, it is “slick.”  Early on, in his Arkansas days, he was appropriately nicknamed Slick Willy because he was, and is, so incredibly slick in his lies, deceits and manipulations of the ignorant, voting public. 

 

No one should be foolish enough to try to blame the Republicans, or even Clinton’s enemies back in Arkansas, for the attachment of the nominative “Slick Willy” to Bill Clinton. In truth, an Illinois businessman named Jack Wagner sells a “Slick Willy” brand of merchandise (T shirts and other novelties).  He applied for a trade mark to protect the “Slick Willy” brand name of his merchandise. 

 

The US Trademark Office disapproved his request because the name “Slick Willy” is a nickname which applies to Bill Clinton (Jan 3-9, 2000, “Washington Times,” p. 16).  Other companies (including a condom manufacturer) have tried unsuccessfully, to patent their use of the same name.  Though the US government won’t allow trademarks on the name Slick Willy, evidently people using it can continue doing so. 

 

Clinton is not called for nothing the Slick Meister (radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh’s name for Clinton), Slick, Slick Willy, President Slick and/or the Teflon president (because nothing sticks).  He has earned those names.  He is truly one of the most professional and smoothest liars in American history (and that’s saying a lot). 

 

All men are liars from time to time, whenever they are presumptuously communicating something other than the absolute truth--either deliberately (in the Clinton mode) or in sincere ignorance (Num 23:19; Ps 116:11; Rom 3:4).  This “all” indictment includes all of society--Christians, Jews, Muslims, politicians and on and on. 

 

 

The Master Liar 

 

It has to be significant that one of Slick’s fellow Democrats, US Senator Bob Kerrey  from Nebraska, candidly suggested one day that Clinton was the most professional and smoothest liar he had ever known in his life.  Truly, Slick will never bat an eye as he convincingly lies and deceives the ignorant, gullible public. 

 

In his video on “Cheque Mate:  The Game of Princes,” Jeff Baker said that the Republicans lie out of the right side of their mouths and the Democrats lie out of the left side.  But Bill Clinton lies out of both sides. 

 

Beyond Clinton, other deliberate liars are generally not quite so slick and professional at biting their lower lips and looking innocent.  Most of us get caught in our lies and deceptions, and could never successfully pull off the scams which he does. 

 

This is particularly true with deliberate lies which we might tell, if the truth is out there ready for exposure.  In our case, we would usually get trapped in our lies and have to pay a terrible price.  But even when subsequent events unfold to disclose Slick’s deliberate lies, he largely still gets away with them. 

 

In testimony before the US courts, Clinton has gone to great trouble and effort to choose his words very carefully when testifying of his various sexual encounters with women over the years.  Purposely, he has demanded that questions to him in court include detailed definitions of sex--so that he can find and use a loophole in the definition to allow him to purposely lie and deceive the court. 

 

Actually, Slick has used this process for years now--not only in his various appearances before the US courts, but also in his speeches and words to the gullible American public.  Truth, and the telling of truth, are absolutely not on his agenda.  Instead, he carefully crafts his words so that truth is hid and deception is the order of the day. 

 

Truly Bill Clinton, the former president, is a master liar, cheat and fraud.  He is one of the few persons alive today who has puffed on a marijuana cigarette and has never been guilty of smoking the weed (because he says that he didn’t inhale). 

 

He is one of the few married people who can be involved in an act of sodomy in the White House (which Slick defines as an inappropriate relationship) and still not have been involved in a sexual relationship; nor has he committed adultery, per the accepted Christian definition of adultery. 

 

He can say things in one breath and immediately say something totally different in the next breath, all the while claiming that he told the truth in both cases.  He can do things, and yet not have done them.  Is this called double talk?  If not, what is it? 

 

With his sly, cunning and crafty method of choosing his words, it is often hard for his political opponents to come along and prove him in a bare faced lie later, and particularly while the public continues to support him.  In the generic sense, he uses his words in ways that will allow him to weasel out of any pit falls if his needs should later dictate. 

 

It is true that there are any number of deceitful, dishonest, wicked people out in the real world, just like Slick Clinton.  Perhaps to accommodate them and establish truth and righteousness in such concrete terms, YHWH has seen fit to legislate a whole series of statutes and judgments which go into excruciating detail to define, clarify and interpret His commandments--so that no one can fail to understand them. 

 

 

YHWH’s Laws Establish Principles 

 

Above all else, YHWH’s laws, either individually or in appropriate groupings, establish broad principles and outlines of The ELOHIM’s thinking and position on a particular theme.  Consequently, it isn’t only what the law says; but moreover, the true believer can study the law or laws and ascertain tremendous principles which reflect The MOST HIGH’s personality, thinking and perception on a given subject. 

 

For example, the Torah says that we are not to plow with an ox and ass together (Deut 22:10)--obviously, this would put the ass at a disadvantage and hurt him.  The Torah also says that if we see an ox or ass fallen by the way (into a pit, per Lu 14:5), we are to help him up (Deut 22:3).  Also, the Torah says we are not to take a bird (to kill/eat) from a nest with chicks (Deut 22:6). 

 

In these three cases and many more like them, YHWH is establishing a broad principle that man, in his dominion over birds and animals, is not to abuse or hurt them or allow them to suffer unnecessarily.  Does this mean that man can’t kill them for food?  Of course not--because YHWH elsewhere prescribes clean animals for food. 

 

This writer had a friend who flew to Pagan Island in the North Pacific for a visit.  Pagan was uninhabited, except for two Filipino workers and thousands of pigs, goats and other animals which were running wild.  Whenever the Filipinos wanted to feast, they would butcher a hog.  In my friend’s presence, they caught a big, fat hog and commenced the butchering process. 

 

However, instead of just killing the pig outright, the two stupid, evil Filipinos started torturing it to death, and all the while they laughed and giggled over the affair.  They would stick the pig with a knife to let him squeal and suffer, while they had a good time watching him slowly bleed to death.  My friend became very angry at them over their wickedness. 

 

Also, as will be noted in later chapters, Asians like to skin animals alive before butchering them.  They are not unique in this depravity because modern American packing plants are likewise very brutal in the slaughter of animals.  For instance, the Oct-Dec 2000 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 54) had some findings on animal abuse in America. 

 

This source reported that videos have captured on film the abuses in slaughterhouses--like “Struggling cows being hoisted upside down and butchered--while still alive, cows being hit repeatedly with ineffective stunning devices, cows being trampled as workers force other cattle to run over them, disabled cows being chained at the neck and dragged into the box to be stunned and cows being tormented and repeatedly shocked with electric prods (one worker was shown shoving the electric prod into a cow’s mouth.  The prods are to cause them to move ahead to be slaughtered).” 

 

“Petah Tikvah” cited the case at the IBH slaughterhouse in Washington State (the largest one in America).  Workers say about 10% of the butchered cattle go through the skinning process alive.  Many are conscious after stunning but lose consciousness before the skinning process.  Manifestly, this is not YHWH’s way! 

 

 

More 

 

On other occasions, this writer has seen animals abused and mistreated by stupid, evil people.  One of the classic cases occurred some years ago near Parma, Idaho. 

 

There was a man near Parma who had a herd of perhaps 15 horses, which he kept pastured in an open field of about 40 acres.  Whether or not he ever brought in any hay for them is uncertain.  At least, this writer never saw any hay delivered over a period of two years or so.  Logically, he brought some hay in sometimes because snow often covered the ground in the winter. 

 

He had a small water line, which he periodically turned on, to bring in water to cause a large puddle of water on the ground that they drank from.  In the winter, the line sometimes froze up, and there was no water for them--even seemingly, for days (maybe, they could lick up a little snow or moisture from frozen ice). 

 

Whoever this man was, he was evil and in manifest sin because this is not YHWH’s way.  On rare occasions, the temperature could plunge to 20 degrees below zero.  It was a pitiful and pathetic sight to watch those animals trying to scrounge for food and water, which sometimes just was not readily available.  For sure, some colts did die occasionally because i have seen their dead bodies in the field.  

 

An article on cruelty to animals in the “Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period” (p. 36) says that cruelty to animals is prohibited by the seven commandments given to Noah. 

 

This source adds that its avoidance requires slaughtering animals humanely; not muzzling an ox when it ploughs (Deut 25:4); allowing animals a Sabbath of rest (Ex 23:12); feeding animals before eating; not buying animals one cannot properly feed; and showing mercy to animals.  Yes, it is sin to abuse or hurt animals improperly. 

 

 

The ONE LAWGIVER 

 

In the Tanakh, and indeed in the NT, The MOST HIGH YHWH is recognized as The True LAWGIVER, although Moshe was the scribe who wrote down His words in the Torah.  Since YHWH became YESHUA in the NT (as discussed in a previous chapter), it is manifest that effectively He was The LAWGIVER. 

 

No other persons or writers had (or have) the authority to dictate law.  Like the New Testament Scriptures declare--there is only ONE LAWGIVER (Jas 4:12).  Beyond This ONE LAWGIVER and His given law in the Torah, all of the other OT and NT writers, prophets, apostles, etc were essentially only interpreters of the law (Torah).  None of the prophets, apostles, writers, etc were lawgivers. 

 

In other words, the prophets and apostles were giving their opinions, thoughts and ideas (correctly, judgments under inspiration) on what YHWH’s law (Genesis through Deuteronomy) said, and how it was to be applied in given situations--usually, in the context of how the people were sinning and violating YAH’s Torah (the OT prophets especially were commissioned to point out the people’s sins). 

 

Beyond The ONE LAWGIVER and His appropriately commissioned interpreters (judges, prophets, apostles, etc), no one else has been commissioned or charged to Scripturally define or formally interpret law. 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

The closure of the Torah ended YHWH’s statements on law (which is proven in Deut 4:1-2 and 12:32, as covered elsewhere herein), and the closure of the NT ended YAH’s formal legal interpretations of His law. 

 

As discussed in the above comments, it is obvious that the faithful followers of that ONE LAWGIVER today have no authority to be the judges of the law (that is speaking evil, condemning and/or opposing the law or deciding upon its legal status) which The ONE LAWGIVER gave (Jas 4:11). 

 

Clearly, there is no authority for the likes of Ellen White, Joseph Smith or any of the other so-called Christian prophets.  Christians may love, follow and be devoted to their human prophets.  But those persons are sadly lacking in terms of truth and the Word. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 33--The Definition of Sin

 

 

The Real Issue 

 

This chapter will address the question of sin, which Christianity has struggled with for ages in an attempt to define and understand.  In truth, Christianity has completely missed the boat in these years of supposedly considering the question.  This chapter will assess it. 

 

But first, there are several underlying principles and facts which need to be brought out and stressed. 

 

As was mentioned in the prior chapter, the Hebrew word “Torah,” meaning instructions, teachings, doctrines and laws as found in the totality of the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy, commonly has been translated into the Greek Old and New Testaments as “nomos,” meaning law. 

 

English translators picked up this Greek attitude toward the Torah.  The result has been that, in English translations of both Testaments, Torah and the Greek nomos are routinely translated into English as law (though Torah should be transliterated in appropriate situations).  While the case probably can be built that the commandments in the Torah are laws, such a translation may present some difficulties. 

 

Anyway, this condition leads one to study, talk about and define the OT law instead of the Tanakh Torah.  The whole focus should be on the issue of the Torah and not necessarily on the law.  It is questionable that the word Torah is exactly synonymous with the English word law or the Greek nomos. 

 

The reader of English translations must usually begin to think in terms of, or at least consider, the Torah whenever the word law comes up in the Scriptures.  As outlined in the former chapter, the Hebrew word Torah does not apply in all cases for the Greek “nomos” in the Septuagint or the NT, but it applies in most cases.  

 

 

No New Laws on Right and Wrong 

 

As was broached slightly in the former chapter, many misinformed and ignorant Christians “assume” that The MESSIAH came and abolished the Old Testament laws (or correctly the Torah). 

 

To fill in this void of no laws establishing and defining righteousness and sin, many Christians believe that the NT writers proceeded to issue “new” teachings and instructions to redefine sin and righteousness for the benefit of the Christian community (which is what Stephen Jones alluded to in his previously quoted comments). 

 

No!  Absolutely not at all!  Neither Kefa, Yakov, Yohanan, Shaul or anyone else in the NT (except YESHUA) had any authority, status or legal right to dictate law beyond YHWH (as recorded by Moshe).  Even YESHUA (Who was/is YHWH) evidently issued no new laws in the NT.  The only thing that He did do was to clarify and interpret existing law. 

 

This condition was clearly established by Moshe in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and 12:32, as cited earlier herein.  When Moshe completed the Torah (as given by YHWH), no one further has any authority whatsoever to add to his writings in Genesis to Deuteronomy in the sense of law, sin and righteousness.  This lets out all of the other OT and NT writers as well as all Christian Church leaders/writers for the past 2,000 years. 

 

As outlined above, and previously, all that the NT people accomplished was to recognize given laws and interpret and apply them in various situations--just as the OT judges and prophets had done in their day.  In that sense, the NT personalities closely resembled the OT judges and prophets, at least in terms of their works and messages. 

 

Thus, when Shaul wrote about the hair length for men and women (in I Cor 11:3-15, to be discussed in a later chapter), he was not establishing laws for the Apostolic Assembly.  Actually, he was giving his opinion or judgment and clarifying and interpreting some OT laws which were already in place and had authority from the Torah (which is very clear on men, but somewhat complicated on women). 

 

In other words, it is YHWH’s mitzwot in the Torah which expressly make it a sin for a man to have long hair, or for a woman to cut her hair short (these issues will be further discussed in later chapters).  The NT Apostle Shaul came along and clarified them somewhat, and restated them with some emphasis. 

 

 

Rabbinic Teaching Methods 

 

In Second Temple days, the Tanakh was handwritten in Hebrew scrolls.  Since these scrolls were tedious to prepare, they were very expensive to own.  Few people could afford them.  Even the few scrolls owned by families were generally safeguarded in secure places and not carried out of the people’s homes for use in public meetings. 

 

Accordingly, the people from their childhoods memorized much of the textual presentations, and particularly the Torah (either from handed down oral teachings or from the few scrolls which were available).  Obviously, memorization was the prevailing situation with the Talmud, the so-called Oral Law, to be later addressed. 

 

Jim Myers, of Texas, notes that whenever a “rabbi” wanted to teach on a subject his normal procedure was merely to quote a verse, or line or two from one of the books, and the people would be able at once to recall the entire text from their memories (No 3, 1999, “Discovering the Bible,” p. 5).  There was no need to quote the entire text since the people knew it. 

 

Once the focus was placed on the text, the “rabbi” would proceed to offer his commentary and understanding of the text.  YESHUA was a Second Temple RABBI.  Per Myers, He merely followed the standard Rabbinic teaching practice.  He would quote, or make reference to a line or two from the Tanakh, and then proceed on with His commentary, in the context that the people were already familiar with the Scripture. 

 

Although Myers did not mention the other Apostolic teachers (like Shaul, Kefa, etc), the same teaching situation seems to apply to them.  In bringing up a text from the Tanakh, there was no need to quote it completely.  All one had to do was to briefly identify it with a few words, and the people would recall the text at once and its general outline. 

 

Myers makes the point that modern students of the Word (who are not familiar with the OT texts) would do well to open up, compare and review the Tanakh quotations completely, in context, in the study of NT commentaries by YESHUA. 

 

The writer of this study would note that this same reasoning applies to all NT quotations from the Tanakh.  Obviously, this method does not imply that the text under discussion was done away with or abolished.  For sure, the text applied fully to deserve NT commentary. 

 

 

The Law Was Not Destroyed 

 

Regarding the Old Testament law, it is relevant both to the subject, and of interest, that The ANOINTED ONE, Himself, said to think "not" that He had come to "destroy" (or abolish) the law (the Torah) because He did not come to destroy it; but rather, He did come to obey it and live it fully (as the Greek text literally has it at Matthew 5:17-18--per Jameison, Fausset and Brown’s “Commentary on the Old and New Testaments"). 

 

Yet, in total opposition to what He plainly and conclusively said, Christendom's entire theology is built on the premise that SALVATION "abolished" the law by fulfilling it.  Naturally, she preaches and publicizes this nonsense to the multiplied millions and billions of people all over the world.  It seems that it is a rare person who would dare come forward to actually check the Scriptures on the issue. 

 

Surely, any person with brains above the moron level should be suspicious that something smells when one reads Matthew 5:17-18, where YESHUA said that He did not come to destroy or abolish the law, as opposed to Christendom’s interpretation of that statement (by believing that when YESHUA fulfilled the law, He abolished and terminated it). 

 

Obviously, something is wrong with Churchianity’s interpretation of that text.  With Christendom’s interpretation and wishful thinking, the two resulting positions are contradictory and hopelessly confusing.  Of course, the truth is that the Greek word, translated as “fulfilled” (pleroo), as used in Matthew 5:17, does not mean, or even suggest, a termination or ending of the subject (law). 

 

No!  The Greek “pleroo” more correctly means “live fully,” as noted above, to include doing, performing or accomplishing the subject.  In other words, YESHUA came to obey the law fully and to perform and accomplish the Old Testament commandments perfectly without sin or transgression. 

 

If there is any doubt about this true and correct meaning for the Greek pleroo, then all one has to do is check Matthew 3:15 where the text notes that as Yohanan baptized YESHUA--The MESSIAH said that it was to fulfill (Greek pleroo) all righteousness. 

 

How many Christians will be naive, stupid or rebellious enough to come forward now and declare that all righteousness was terminated, abolished and done away with simply because YESHUA fulfilled (pleroo) it at His baptism? 

 

No!  YESHUA did not abolish, terminate or end righteousness when He was baptized.  All that He did was to perform it and live it in His actions. 

 

The MESSIAH made a number of other statements which also conclusively proved that He did not do away with the Torah.  One of these important texts surfaced when He remarked that certain evil Pharisees and scribes “sit in Moshe’s seat” (Matt 23:2). 

 

As Professor Shmuel Safrai of Hebrew University indicates from ancient Midrashic literature, the early Second Temple synagogues seem to have had a “seat of Moshe,” actually used for teaching Torah (“Jerusalem Perspective,” Jan/Jun 1994).  Most interpreters readily accept YESHUA’s Words as being His acknowledgment that these teachers were inheritors of Moshe’s authority, and thus legally could teach the Torah. 

 

But a problem apparently arose in YESHUA’s next comment that the KJV has as “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works:  for they say, and do not” (Matt 23:3).  A first reading of this would suggest that YESHUA’s followers should be obeying the words (not the hypocritical actions) of these evil Pharisees and scribes who possessed the authority of Moshe. 

 

 

A Problem With the Greek 

 

But there can be some problems when accepting this King James Version statement as translating the underlying Greek text.  A man named Ross Nichols had an article on the Internet in early 1997 which focused on these remarks, and the ensuing dilemma, when one compares that statement with other conflicting and contradictory statements elsewhere in the NT. 

 

Thus, YESHUA also said that these “Pharisees and scribes” taught the commandments of men which made void the commandments of YAH (Matt 15:6); their teachings were plants (of an enemy) which will be uprooted by YAH (Matt 13:37-39; 15:3); they placed emphasis on human ordinances which were for show in the outer man while ignoring the inner man (Matt 23:25-28); their teachings were like leaven (Matt 16:11-12); they ignored the weightier matters in the Torah (Matt 23:23); and some of them (Sadducees?) knew not the Scriptures (Matt 22:29). 

 

Nichols postulates that the Greek text of Matthew 23:2-3 (and its translation into most English versions) is at odds with the rest of Mattityahu (as shown in the above statements).  Consequently, something is wrong with the Greek rendition.  To offer a solution, Nichols turned to the work of Dr George Howard, Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia. 

 

Howard made a translation of an ancient Hebrew text of the book of Matthew, allegedly restored and used by one Shem Tob ben Isaac ben Shaprut (as briefly cited in a former chapter).  This text was based upon an earlier work; evidently used, maintained and circulated within Jewish religious circles for many, long centuries in the vein of being used by the Jews to critique Christianity and Christian writings. 

 

Apparently, this Hebrew Matthew text first surfaced in the 14th century (c1380 CE) as a part of a Jewish polemical treatise prepared by Shem Tob (“Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended,” p. 37).  But the basis of this Hebrew text of Matthew clearly was much older, perhaps dating to the Apostolic Assembly or at least to the later Ebionites (“Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,” by Dr George Howard, p. 157-160, 221-234). 

 

Incidentally, it is interesting that the Jews, from the standpoint of an adversarial role, maintained and communicated this book of Matthew in the Hebrew language for many long centuries (in Scriptural Hebrew, with a mixture of Mishnaic Hebrew and later Rabbinic contributions).  Thus, the question must come up--is it possible that this Jewish work had anything to do with their commission from YHWH (per Rom 3:2)? 

 

 

Ross Nichols’ View 

 

Evidently, Howard’s translation of this Shem Tob work gained some popular recognition in modern times and came to Nichols’ attention. 

 

Based on Howard’s translation, the Hebrew at Matthew 23:2-3 reads “Upon the seat of Moshe the Pharisees and Sages sit, but now all which He (referring to Moshe) will say to you, keep and do, but their (referring to the Pharisees and Sages sitting on Moshe’s seat) ordinances and deeds do not do because they say and do not.”  In other words, there has evidently been some mis-stated pronouns in the Greek text. 

 

As Nichols notes, there is a clear distinction to be made between what HE (singular--Moshe) says, as opposed to what THEY (plural--the Pharisees and scribes) say.  In addition to the Hebrew rendition, Nichols notes that an old Latin manuscript has the same correct presentation.  Clearly, YESHUA says that His followers should be obeying Moshe (the Torah) from the Hebrew text. 

 

Even if the Greek was right, it still would say to obey the Torah as correctly taught by the Jewish leaders.  Either way, there is no possibility of believing that the Torah (law) was done away with in that presentation. 

 

The point of this whole matter is that however that text is to be translated, the fact remains that it presents authority for the Torah as recorded by Moshe.  It echoes an earlier statement of Yeshayahu (Isa 8:20). 

 

Also, YESHUA was later to give still more status to Moshe when He used a parable to say that if people won’t hear (study and learn) Moshe and the prophets, they will not hear one risen from the dead (Lu 16:31).  In another instance, He said that since people won’t believe (study to believe) Moshe, they will not believe Him (Jo 5:46-47). 

 

Since Christians refuse to believe or hear Moshe (in their willful failure to read, study, learn, understand and obey Moshe), how in the world is it ever possible that they can hear and believe YESHUA?  To hear, believe and comprehend The MESSIAH, it is categorically essential to hear, believe and understand Moshe--by study and obedience!  The two are inexorably linked together. 

 

 

Acts 21:17-28 

 

Late in the ministry of Shaul, perhaps around 60 CE or so, Shaul decided to go to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16), and to see Yakov and the Jerusalem brethren.  Upon arrival, he found that the Jerusalem congregation consisted of “thousands” of believers who were “zealous” (or passionate) for the Torah (Acts 21:17-28). 

 

These believers had (incorrectly) heard that Shaul was teaching against circumcision and Jewish customs (in the Torah) in his missionary journeys.  This apparently concerned the collective thousands of them, as well as Yakov.  So Yakov proposed that Shaul go to the Temple and offer a sacrifice for himself, and also pay for the Temple sacrifices of four of the NT brethren who had been under a vow. 

 

To prove that he still supported the Torah, Shaul complied (the significance of this act will be discussed in the following chapters), and actually went on later to declare that he had never spoken or acted against the customs of the Jewish people (Acts 28:17). 

 

Surely, Shaul’s own actions and statements would be sufficient to prove that any allegations suggesting that Shaul was against the Torah or customs of the Jews would have to be wrong.  No way would he be such a classic hypocrite to say and do things in one place (like in Asia Minor), and then do and say something different in Jerusalem. 

 

 

More Powerful Statements 

 

In truth, The SON OF ADAM also said that whomsoever teaches against and disobeys the least of the commandments in the law (the Torah) will be called the "least" in His kingdom (Matt 5:19).  Since Christianity has declared the law dead, and since most Christians flagrantly and willfully violate much of it, one can readily see "who" will be "least" in the kingdom (also see Jer 23:36).  

 

In another important verse, Shlomo wisely wrote that the person who turns his ear away from hearing The SOVEREIGN's law (Torah--Genesis through Deuteronomy), even his prayer shall be an abomination (Prov 28:9).  Of course, Christians generally turn their ears away from hearing the Torah. 

 

Therefore, will The HIGHEST listen to their abominable prayers?  No way (Job 35:13; Prov 15:29; Isa 59:1-3; Mic 3:4; Zech 7:12-13; Jo 9:31)!  This point will be elaborated upon in a later chapter. 

 

In one more powerful message, the Book reflects upon some (sinning) people who cry and moan frequently about "the burden" of The MOST HIGH (which they say is His Word--Jer 23:33-38).  Now, what do you suppose this prophesy could be referring to?  Is it not apparent that when Christians condemn The CREATOR's laws and call them a burden that they are fulfilling (not ending, but only accomplishing) this text? 

 

While space is too limited herein for a review of the hundreds and hundreds of Scriptures which make an abolition of The SUPREME's laws totally out of the question, it will be well to consider a further message.  At least twice, The MESSIAH said that His teachings and doctrines were not His Own--but rather, were of "He" Who sent Him (Jo 7:16; 14:24). 

 

Based on these writings by Yohanan, how can anyone be naive enough to come forth and proclaim that The ANOINTED ONE would dare destroy the laws of His "sender" (irrespective of how one may view the question of the so-called "godhead" in these communications). 

 

The essence of this is that the law (Torah) has never been abolished because as long as heaven and earth endure, even the smallest letter (the yod in the Hebrew alphabet) can not pass away or be destroyed from the law (Matt 5:18).  Since heaven and earth have not yet passed away, there is absolutely nothing, in fact, which would permit a student of truth to perceive an abolishment or ending of YHWH’s law. 

 

 

“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana” 

 

In the fifth century CE, a famous Jewish sage of Palestine named Kahana gathered and edited all of the discourses (known as piskas) that had been delivered in the Palestinian synagogues and schools on special Sabbaths and festive occasions for almost five centuries. 

 

His work, “Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” mentioned previously, is a masterpiece of early Midrashim literature and a veritable treasure of homiletic commentary on the Scriptures.  His focus was directed to the teachings prevalent in the Schools of Shammai and Hillel in the late first century BCE (to be described in later chapters) up through the fourth century CE. 

 

This information is of profound importance because it covers material that would have been presented and discussed in first century CE synagogues attended by YESHUA, Kefa, Yakov, Yohanan and Shaul.  In modern times, it was translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic into English by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein. 

 

As Piska 12 notes, even as the Torah has no end (mentioned by YESHUA at Matt 5:18), so there is no end to its reward.  As the Psalmist said (Ps 31:19 in KJV)-- “Oh how abundant is Thy goodness, which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee” (“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” p. 242-243). 

 

In a commentary on Exodus 19:1, which precedes the giving of the Ten Commandments, Moshe wrote “on this day” because the study of Torah is always in the context of the present (the KJV mistranslates this text to “the same day,” but the Hebrew is “on this day”). 

 

The Words of the Torah are never antiquated, old fashioned, yesterday’s or just something from history.  To the reader or listener, the Torah is always fresh and current, as though it was given this day or today.  As Piska 12 states, the Torah does not say “that day;” but rather, “this day.” 

 

 

The Torah Defines Sin 

 

Overwhelmingly, without the Torah (Scriptural law), there would be no sin because sin only exists where there is Scriptural law in the context of the Torah.  For example, Yohanan wrote that sin is the transgression of the law, as noted earlier (I Jo 3:4, per the Greek anomia, to be described in later chapters), and that every failure to obey The MOST HIGH's law is sin (I Jo 5:17, “J. B. Phillips Translation”). 

 

To have sin, the Torah (law) must be present.  Manifestly, there would be no sin or sinners without the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) which establishes and defines sin.  There is no other alternative on this issue!  

 

Furthermore, Shaul poignantly declared that by the law (Torah) is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20); for where there is no law, there is no transgression (Rom 4:15); sin is not imputed when there is no law (Rom 5:13); and he had not known sin, but by the law (Rom 7:7).  One should take notice of the fact that it was Shaul the apostle who said these things in the NT, and not Moshe or one of the Old Testament prophets. 

 

Despite these unmistakable and clear words that it is The CREATOR's laws (in the Torah) which define and establish the morality of right and wrong (sin and righteousness), Christendom says that the law was done away with and is no more for Christians. 

 

 

Christians Try To Define Sin 

 

By Churchianity's abolishment of what The ETERNAL declares and defines as sin (the Torah generally and the Decalogue particularly--Ex 20:1-17; Ps 19:7-11; 119:97-106; 119:163; Prov 3:1-3; Isa 59:1-3; Matt 19:17-20; Rom 7:22; 10:5; I Jo 2:3-5; Rev 22:14), there would be no sin, and hence no sinners needing salvation. 

 

Without sin and sinners, Christendom would have no impetus to raise tons of money in order to finance global, missionary, outreach programs.  Thus, since Christians have, in one breath, abolished the law; they have had to take another breath and create their "own" laws about right and wrong--so that there can be sinners needing salvation. 

 

Admittedly, most Christian groups attempt to use the New Testament as their basis of faith and for the establishment of sin.  But since the NT does not constitute a code of law, numerous important issues seem to remain in a state of confusion.  Consequently, many Christian Churches have chosen to establish church laws, rules and regulations to define sin. 

 

 

Mother Rome

 

Accordingly, the Roman Catholic Church early on decided that both the Pope and her church councils had authority to legislate questions over moral dogma.  Not only has Rome assumed the prerogative to establish right and wrong, but she has gone even further with her believed authority to classify those sins in terms of seriousness. 

 

Consequently, the Universal Church distinguishes between serious sins which she calls mortal sins, and less serious sins which she classifies as venial.  The mortal sins supposedly are those done with foreknowledge and deliberate intent.  In the good Catholic’s eyes, missing mass and confession constitute extreme mortal sins. 

 

There have been other important illustrations.  For example, the Catholic Church, over the centuries, made it a mortal sin to eat any meat (except fish) on Fridays.  Then, in more recent times, the church changed this definition so that any kind of meat can now be eaten on Fridays by certain people. 

 

Since the question of eating beef, pork or fish may seem insignificant to most people, the Catholic Church has gone several steps further with far more profound changes in its doctrine over the years, as even Protestants acknowledge.  These changes have continued even into modern times with the completion of the Vatican II Church Council. 

 

From Constantine’s effective marriage of church and state (c312-325 CE) until the elapse of some 1,260 years or so; people who dared to question Rome, or desired religious freedom, typically were branded as heretics and often tortured and burned alive at the stake. 

 

In a “good Catholic’s eyes,” that was considered “taking the Gospel to the world,” and particularly so during the popular Catholic Inquisition of several hundred years ago. 

 

But then, with the birth of religious liberty and the growth of dissent during the Protestant Reformation, Catholicism modified her stance considerably and actually began to tolerate and put up with some religious disagreement (in the context of ecumenicalism), particularly so whenever the Roman Church has been in a minority position (like in Britain and the US). 

 

 

Mormons Define Sin 

 

In their quest to decide upon right and wrong, the Mormons also are interesting because of their regular confusion and contradictions.  Early on, they declared that polygamy was right and the thing to do. 

 

While the reason for adopting this doctrine might be argued, the evidence is that the married Joseph Smith saw a beautiful young woman in his flock.  Old Joe wanted the girl, and the best way to get her was to teach polygyny to his (dumb) sheep (actually contrary to I Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6, since he was “supposed to be” a bishop or spiritual leader). 

 

Later, when US political pressure against the Mormons increased (which acted to deny the territory of Utah entrance into the union), the Mormons decided that polygyny was, in fact, wrong and forbid their followers from practicing it. 

 

In another sample of blatant Mormon hypocrisy, the church head man told his flock that Black people could not serve in their priesthood.  But then, in recent years, racial integration and amalgamation became popular in the US.  So the Mormon boss man had a new "revelation from heaven" that Colored people can be Mormon priests after all. 

 

It is no wonder that the Mormons have the problems which they do have in understanding the Word.  The proof of their confusion surfaces in their attitude which was well put by their first president in the August 1992 issue of their "Ensign" magazine. 

 

He said that "the most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any Biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations." 

 

 

 Other Protestants Define Sin 

 

Of course, other Protestant denominations also got on the band wagon and followed suit.  Several of them argued that drinking alcoholic beverages was sin, many contended that missing church services on Sunday was sin, others said that playing cards was sin, and on and on in terms of man's ability to think up do’s and don'ts for his dumb followers. 

 

Perhaps the biggest indictment against the Protestant Churches on this theme concerns the way that they have hypocritically flip-flopped on Hollywood and the movie industry in general.  In the early days, many Protestants argued that going to “picture shows” was sin. 

 

But then television came along, with its chance to have movies at home, and change the whole Protestant perspective.  So they responded by revising their definition of sin (once more).  Not only have Protestants accepted TV, but they largely have proceeded to accept the filth, perversion, violence, sex, Witchcraft, occultism, New Ageism and on and on that are constantly emitted over the tube. 

 

 

Stephen E. Jones, Revisited 

 

Stephen E. Jones’ article on “The Purpose of Law and Grace,” discussed earlier, also addresses this dilemma in Christianity where various Christian Churches abolish YHWH’s law (and thus become anarchists) and devise their own schemes and laws and righteousness (Sep 1998 “Destiny Editorial Letter,” p. 1). 

 

Jones wrote:  “In the religious context some are Christian anarchists who advocate doing away with God’s law that they themselves may decide what moral standard to follow.  Generally they follow the ‘Love’ standard, which is commendable so long as they know how to define Love. 

 

“Most Christian anarchists take the easy route by joining a particular church or denomination that defines Love for them.  Thus, they depose God’s law and substitute church law.  The church then becomes their god.”  Again, Jones has offered some good thinking in attempting to explain why Christian Churches are so quick to abolish YHWH’s laws, only to go on to establish their own laws. 

 

Assuredly, love is one of the most profoundly misused and abused words in the vocabulary of most Christians.  It is an important concept on which Christendom has effectively missed the point, as will be proven in a later chapter. 

 

 

What Is Sin? 

 

Powerfully, the Word lays out Scriptural mitzwot (in the Torah) which define precisely right and wrong (sin and righteousness).  These laws do not vacillate from right to left in order to play to, or appease, prevailing public opinion at any particular time and place.  Consequently, The CREATOR's mitzwot are manifestly different than those of small, little men. 

 

Scriptural laws do not change at the whim of ignorant, confused and uncertain church leaders who have their own agendas to pursue.  And Scriptural laws are markedly different from the laws of stupid limited humans that change with every different blow of the wind (as will be discussed in a future chapter). 

 

Manifestly, The MOST HIGH's commandments stand forever and never can be altered, abolished or redefined.  They represent the immutable thinking, will and expression of righteousness of The CREATOR. 

 

And the beauty of The SOVEREIGN's mitzwot about right and wrong is that they are laid out in certain terms for anyone willing to consider them by reading and studying the Book.  They are readily available to any interested person and they are not hard to understand.  Instead, they are fairly plain, clear and easy to comprehend, as Moshe so stated some 3,500 years ago (Deut 4:6; 30:11-14). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 34--Acts 15

 

 

Acts 15 Conference 

 

One of the important New Testament messages, which Christians like to seize upon to support their Torah termination ideas, was penned by Luke at Acts 15. 

 

The gist of the meeting in Acts 15 was that certain “men” (surely religious Jews) came down to Antioch (in Northern Syria, near Asia Minor) and taught the brethren there that “salvation” was contingent upon the works of circumcision (or except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be saved, as the KJV has it--Acts 15:1). 

 

In other words, these Jewish men (who may not have been followers of YESHUA) were teaching that salvation was dependent on circumcision (not whether a believer should or should not be circumcised).  Now, the one thing which will be pressed in this entire study is that salvation is a free gift of grace and involves no work whatsoever. 

 

This is a well known fact for any student of the Word.  Nevertheless, the Antioch brethren were concerned.  So they sent Shaul (Saul or Paul in the KJV), Bar-Nabba (an Aramaic name--known as Barnabas in the KJV) and certain others to Jerusalem to broach the question with the Apostolic Assembly apostles and elders. 

 

In this action of sending Shaul and Bar-Nabba to Jerusalem to pose the question to the Jerusalem leadership, a subtle message exists suggesting that the Jerusalem Congregation was a central authority which decided doctrinal matters within the Apostolic Assembly (as late as around 51 CE).  Please note that the Apostle Yakov was the apparent nasi (as described earlier) in this meeting/organization (Acts 15:13). 

 

In other words, even Shaul and Bar-Nabba were ready to defer their beliefs and authority to the leadership in Jerusalem. 

 

 

Laying Out the Question 

 

So the delegation arrived in the historic city and outlined the problem.  This prompted some of the Jerusalem brethren to state their opinion that believers (outside Palestine) must be circumcised (for salvation) and must keep the law of Moshe (in order to achieve reconciliation and entrance into the Covenant--Acts 15:5). 

 

Now, the law of Moshe is quite extensive as it deals with commandments, statutes, judgments and ordinances which address general morality; which apply in the theocracy (where YHWH rules directly); which include the punishments for violations of the various laws; which prescribe the operation of the Tabernacle-Temple; which focus on conversion and reconciliation to YHWH; and on and on. 

 

Hence, one of the questions that ultimately would have had to be settled was what portion or aspect of the law of Moshe was of concern.  So the Jerusalem meeting took place and the conclusion was “no” --people do not have to be circumcised and keep the law of Moshe for justification and the attainment of salvation (any or all or even whatever portion of the law that was in question). 

 

 

Justification by Faith--Not Works 

 

And this is the essence of the entire Scriptures.  Man is justified by faith and not by works.  Even the chosen Avraham was justified (and obtained a state of righteousness) by faith and not by works (Rom 4:1-13; Gal 3:1-11; Heb 11:8-9).  Why?  Well, because once we become a condemned sinner, we then face everlasting death and destruction in the law (not because the law is bad, but because we are bad). 

 

For our part and on our own, we can never do anything, obey any law or perform any act of righteousness (once we are in the state of condemnation) which will ever reconcile us to YHWH.  Effectively, we are dead forever and can do nothing on our own thenceforth about our hopeless, lost condition. 

 

No flesh (which has sinned without forgiveness and earned the resulting eternal death and damnation) can ever achieve reconciliation and justification thereafter by works of any kind--law or otherwise (Gal 2:16).  Even the sacrificial system was limited to only one forgiveness for one incident of one sin of one limited type at one time by one sacrifice (like an allowable single sin of ignorance, as will be described later). 

 

Therefore, all flesh (all mature flesh of people--Jews, non-Jews, pagans and persons of all other worldly religions, including Christians, as will be addressed and proven in subsequent chapters) soon become unreconcilable sinners for mountains of unforgiven past sins!  Leviticus and the sacrificial system (by law) simply could not handle this dilemma. 

 

 

Faith Involves Obedience 

 

Yet, Avraham, justified by faith (Gen 12:1; Heb 11:8-9), obeyed YHWH and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes and His law (Gen 26:3-5).  Question--is faith somehow linked to doers of the Torah/law?  Assuredly yes (Rom 2:13; Jas 2:14-26).  Evidently, faith and justification come first and obedience of the Torah/law comes next (forgiveness first and circumcision second are what Shaul outlined in Romans 4:7-12). 

 

Consequently, Avraham was justified by faith, and then he went on to obey YAH’s law.  One of YHWH’s first commandments to him (and his descendants after him) was that of circumcision (Gen 17:10-14).  Of course, he obeyed and was circumcised (Gen 17:23-27)--but not for justification and salvation, which came by grace and faith. 

 

Thereafter, “all” of the faithful male descendants of Avraham, who were to take hold of The EL’s Covenant, have been circumcised (including Timothy--Acts 16:3).  Yes, YESHUA, Himself, was circumcised (Lu 2:21), but certainly not for salvation or the attainment of righteousness. 

 

YESHUA attained righteousness when He lived to maturity and sinned not!  He sinned not because He emphatically obeyed all points of the law--the Torah.  Correctly, He became The Only MAN in history Who earned a state of righteousness by works of obedience of the Torah.  If He would have failed in any point in the Torah, He would have become a sinner, totally incapable of saving even Himself, much less others. 

 

The Apostle Shaul wisely asked-- “Do we then make void the law through faith?  God forbid:  yea, we establish the law” (Rom 3:31).  Nothing could be more plain.  Faith doesn’t void the Torah.  No, no, no!  Faith establishes the Torah and the need to obey it.  As Yakov wrote, faith without works (of the Torah) is dead (Jas 2:17). 

 

 

Christian Confusion 

 

While both the OT and NT say plainly enough that man (who has “once” sinned, without receiving forgiveness of that one sin by the Temple sacrificial system) can only be justified and made righteous by faith (not works of obedience or anything else), it is amazing that most of Christendom precisely believes that man in the OT could become righteous through works of obedience (after carrying unforgiven sins). 

 

The previously cited Sep 2000 “Destiny Letter” (p. 1) clearly demonstrates this Christian confusion of claiming that OT Israelites “celebrated the Passover in order to be justified (made righteous) before God.”  After claiming that Israelites practiced “some” obedience for justification, this same source goes on to say that performance of the law could not justify these Israelites.  This is double talk, but it is Christian theology. 

 

Christians actually believe that in the OT Israelites could and did obtain justification by acts of obedience.  Yet, these same Christians believe that “real” justification comes by faith and not obedience (at least, in the NT).  This confusion can be called Babylonian confusion--as it correctly is.  Tragically, it also exists in some ways in Judaism (as will be addressed below).

 

Some Christians even believe that the Temple sacrificial system was adequate and sufficient to forgive the mountains of sins that people carry in their lives.  Clearly, even the very best of Jews (who worked diligently to obey the Torah and who did offer sacrifices for single acts of sin) routinely carried guilt for numbers of past unforgiven sins. 

 

Jews 2,000 years ago, and today, as well, face the same problems of forgiveness as everyone else.  As good as the Temple and sacrificial system was to forgive single incidents of certain allowable sins, it always was inadequate to address and resolve the mountains of sin which mature people carry in the flesh.  Something more than animal sacrifices was invariably needed, from the days of Adam/Moshe forward. 

 

 

The Conflict in Judaism 

 

Despite the unmistakable truth of the Book on justification by faith, Judaism, in Second Temple days and to this day, has come to believe that justification and conversion to Judaism are somehow linked to being circumcised and performing certain other works--such as baptism, and in Second Temple days, going to the Temple and offering a sacrifice (per the “Laws of Conversion,” in “Encyclopaedia Judaica”). 

 

Dr Emil Schurer, in “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ” (v. ii, division 2, p. 319-320), spells out this conversion to Judaism from the Talmud as involving circumcision, baptism and offering a sacrifice in the Temple.  He says that in the very ancient Mishnah, all three processes are presupposed as being already of long standing.  Obviously, this was the established practice in Shaul’s day. 

 

In mentioning this need for a new convert to offer a sacrifice, the point must be made again that Scripturally the Temple sacrificial system was available only for single acts of certain allowable sins and not the multitudes of gross past sins that unconverted people possess (from past guilt).  In other words, the Scriptures do not spell out a Temple sacrifice to cover the mass of unforgiven past sins that mature people carry. 

 

In this Jewish outline for salvation (in the sense of conversion to Judaism), it wasn’t only that Second Temple Judaism was prescribing a series of works for justification; but in the first century CE, there was an enormous conflict of opinion between the Jewish School of Shammai and the School of Hillel over the actual process (these two schools will be assessed in some detail in later chapters). 

 

 

The Importance of Circumcision 

 

As “Encyclopaedia Judaica” notes in its article on “proselytes,” the Bet Shammai people contended that the actual point of conversion and membership in the covenant (with the recognition of salvation) occurred with physical circumcision (which, by the way, has some Scriptural support for ger converts in accordance with Exodus 12:48 that did require circumcision before a ger male could sacrifice and eat the Passover.  But this need in the Book was not for salvation.  It was only for membership in the congregation and the requirement for sacrificing and the eating of the Passover). 

 

If a person had previously been circumcised, the Bet Shammai argued that the candidate still had to go through the ordeal of drawing blood (which is still the Orthodox practice today). 

 

Conversely, the Bet Hillel people stipulated that the point of conversion, entrance into the covenant and recognition of salvation occurred with baptism in live water, although they did teach circumcision (per Ex 12:48, but not for justification).  Bet Hillel did not require candidates to have more blood drawn if they had previously been circumcised. 

 

This point of conversion (whether by baptism or circumcision) was important in terms of determining the precise point of becoming a proselyte.  But it was not necessarily important for all else to follow.  In other words, one ultimately had to be circumcised in both cases, in order to go into the Temple and offer the required sacrifice (which was stipulated for conversion in the Talmud’s laws of conversion, as just noted). 

 

Perhaps the Jews from Judea, who had come to Antioch (in Acts 15), were advocating the Bet Shammai position that salvation was granted upon the works of circumcision. 

 

Although not stated, the Antioch or Jerusalem brethren may have thought to add the other relevant issues of going to Jerusalem and making a sacrifice--as Judaism taught and as based upon their interpretation of the sacrificial requirements of certain chapters of the book of Leviticus (the law of Moshe). 

 

 

Back to the Conference  

 

The Acts 15 Jerusalem conference took place and correctly decided that justification is not contingent on works of any kind (circumcision or baptism), as alleged in Judaism (or later Christianity).  But the conference went one step further and decreed that the elect at Antioch should abstain from (eating) things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from animals strangled (and not properly bled) and from fornication.  Why? 

 

Significantly, these several points are covered in the law of Moshe--specifically, these (moral) laws are found in the book of Leviticus (Lev 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-15), which consists mostly of the previously defined, local, limited ordinances (Hebrew “chuqqah” that were applicable to the Jerusalem Temple and its operation--the priesthood, sacrifices, etc).  So, why were these items singled out by the apostles and elders? 

 

Obviously, these laws were universal in application and applied just as much in Asia Minor as they did in Jerusalem.  Yet, much of the rest of those chapters of Leviticus were “chuqqah,” which had only local application at the Temple in Jerusalem (and only relevant in the sense of having to go to the Temple in Jerusalem and offering a single sacrifice for one allowable single-incident of one type of sin). 

 

In fact, as noted earlier, that’s what the Hebrew word chuqqah means--a local ordinance of limited application.  Certainly, as a minimum, those Temple ordinances had no status in far away lands and countries, such as Antioch (besides being incorrectly understood and applied by the Jews in their Talmudic laws of conversion). 

 

Therefore, there was no Scriptural requirement for the newly converted proselytes in Antioch (to the Nazarene sect of Hillel Judaism) to have to go to the Jerusalem Temple to offer a sacrifice for justification and forgiveness for their mass of past sins, as a part of the conversion process (as Judaism supposed--based upon its incorrect understanding of those various chapters in Leviticus). 

 

Assuredly, those ordinances (in Leviticus, which allowed a single sacrifice for a single sin of certain precisely authorized types) were inapplicable for the new believers in YESHUA; who, in faith, were calling upon His shed blood for forgiveness of all past sins of all numbers and types (which is something far greater than was legally allowed in the Temple sacrificial system). 

 

Not only were these authorized sacrifices for sin at the Jerusalem Temple inapplicable in Antioch, but they were even inapplicable in Jerusalem for all numbers and types of the past sins of new converts to YESHUA. 

 

Again, Temple sacrifices for sin were for single acts of certain precisely defined sins (like those of ignorance, ritual impurities, etc, as stipulated in Leviticus--to be discussed in comments to follow on grace and the Torah), and not for the huge quantities of past sins which all new believers in YESHUA (and all other persons as well) are guilty of over their entire lives. 

 

Clearly, for new converts (as well as even all living Jews and Christians), only forgiveness through YESHUA’s blood could begin to cover the mass of unforgiven sins which mature unconverted people carry in the flesh.  Temple sacrifices couldn’t hack it with the gross past sins men carry in the flesh! 

 

 

Questions to Think On! 

 

Did this Acts 15 conference abolish or terminate any of YHWH’s laws?  If the law (the Torah) was abolished in Acts 15, why in the world would later chapters in Acts communicate that believers still believed in and obeyed the Torah (including Temple sacrifices, in appropriate situations)? 

 

Truly, the Acts 15 event never abolished or interfered in the Temple operations and the overall concept of sacrifices (except in the vein of not requiring a sacrifice for newly converted persons to the faith of YESHUA, as was totally wrong in the first place). 

 

Did the later thousands of believers, in Jerusalem, who were zealous for the law (Acts 21:17-28, discussed previously), fail to remember the decision of the Acts 15 conference conducted some nine years earlier?  How could thousands of believers forget so quickly if the Acts 15 conference actually abolished the law (the Torah) as Christendom teaches? 

 

Beyond the thousands of Jerusalem believers with the feeble minds, as alleged by Christendom, the context of Acts 21:17-28 plainly suggests that Yakov and the entire Jerusalem leadership (including the apostles and elders, who seemed to be the central authority to decide doctrinal issues for the entire Apostolic Assembly) had the same problems on memory and understanding (as Christians see it). 

 

Did these thousands of believers all forget their own decision of nine years earlier (Acts 21:25 says no)?  Was Shaul and the other believers he went with to the Temple for sacrificing equally as confused and uncertain as to what the Acts 15 conference decided--if it had, in fact, abolished the Torah (Acts 21:24 says no)? 

 

According to Christian theory, Shaul had preached the end of the Torah for the intervening nine years from Acts 15 to Acts 21.  Did he change his position in his Acts 21 visit to Jerusalem?  Even by the time of Acts 21, the earlier termination of the Torah would have been quite profound. 

 

Hence, could thousands of believers have just ignored the matter if some of the leaders (like Shaul) were out publicly teaching against the Jerusalem decision?  Does it not seem evident that these thousands of believers would have been concerned (as they were) that Shaul was teaching against the Torah without authority and in defiance of the conclusions of the Acts 15 meeting? 

 

If the Torah wasn’t abolished by the time of Acts 21 (which was around 60 CE, very late in the life of the Apostolic Assembly, when much of the NT was already written), can one argue that it ended later before the close of the Apostolic age, c70 CE?  And if it did end later; when did it end, who or what person took it upon himself to end it, and where did it end in the NT? 

 

The answer to all of these questions is the same--no way Hose! 

 

 

More Confusion 

 

And surely, no informed person would dare try to step forward and claim that the total Torah applied to the Jews in Judea, but that the House of Yisrael people in Asia (to be later discussed) were somehow exempted from it; thus making The MOST HIGH out to be a hypocrite with double standards for different peoples (actually, this is a teaching of some Christian preachers). 

 

Obviously, the overall law (the Torah) was not even under consideration at the Acts 15 conference (except for those portions in Leviticus dealing with the Temple and sacrifices for sin and the Jewish teachings that a proselyte had to be circumcised, go to the Temple in Jerusalem and offer a sacrifice in order to attain reconciliation, as seemingly remembered by Yakov in Acts 21:25). 

 

Otherwise, Acts 21 makes no sense at all. 

 

Furthermore, one of the other conclusions of the Acts 15 conference was that there was no need to restate YHWH’s complete law (the Torah) since the writings of Moshe had been preached for generations on every Sabbath in each synagogue in every major town--evidently, in the entire civilized Roman Empire (Acts 15:21). 

 

In other words, the new believers should already be familiar with and informed on the need to obey The ELOHIM’s laws defining righteousness and sin in the Torah.  Actually, it is verity that these new converts to the Nazarene faith of Judaism were already familiar with the Torah extensively, as this point will be proven and elaborated upon in a later chapter. 

 

 

Michael Lebowitz 

 

Incidentally, the Oct-Dec 1999 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 17) had an article by Dr Michael Lebowitz on the “Acts 15” council.  Lebowitz suggests that the essence of the law problem was over the oral law and not the written law of Moshe.  He says that it was the Talmud which spells out the laws of conversion (as noted above). 

 

So the issue was really one on whether the new believer had to obey the Talmud or not (although, in fairness, there was some Scriptural support for the idea of circumcision in Exodus 12:48 because it was a necessary Scriptural step required by the Torah in order for Israelites and their ger converts to make and eat the Passover sacrifice and to have membership in the Congregation of Yisrael).  

 

Otherwise, these Lebowitz comments are good and he may have hit the nail on the head.  In view of mentioning the reading of the law of Moshe in the synagogues on the Sabbath days, the remark is plainly in the vein of the reading of the Torah, as is done on Sabbaths in the synagogues.  Thus, it might be that the Jerusalem council was spelling out the importance of the Torah, as opposed to the Talmud (Acts 15:21). 

 

 

Finally 

 

A final note must be made on this Acts 15 presentation.  Again, as noted earlier, it is well to observe that much of Judaism has historically taught that proselytes had to be baptized to attain justification and for conversion to Judaism.  Most of Christendom has picked upon this false teaching and has (incorrectly) taught its converts that they must be baptized for justification (thus, a salvation by works). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 35--Shaul and the Torah

 

 

More on Shaul 

 

To furthermore support the law termination idea, Christendom seizes upon and uses remarks, mainly by Shaul, on the setting aside of the death penalty law. 

 

Churchianity has traditionally been thoroughly confused about this man Shaul and most of his writings and habitually use them to justify and support Christendom’s erroneous concepts about the abolishment of The MOST HIGH’s laws. 

 

The truth is that in absolutely no cases at all did Shaul ever suggest the abolishment or termination of any of the Torah.  As will be shortly shown, he supported the Torah in all situations--just like all of the other believers involved in the Old Testament and the NT Apostolic Assembly. 

 

Kefa illustrated the difficulty with Shaul’s words when he noted that they were complex, hard to understand and the ignorant (does this include ignorant Christians?) would wrest them to their own destruction (II Pet 3:15-17). 

 

By the way, this difficulty with Shaul’s writings has made a number of so-called students of the Word and scholars become disaffected with Shaul and completely abandon his works as untrustworthy, as outlined in previous comments in this study.  This approach is a terrible mistake, as will be conclusively established in this production. 

 

Some scholars/students of the Word, like Darrell W. Conder, even charge that “Paul” was a “platonic Jewish philosopher,” who obtained some of his thinking from the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (“Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time,” p. 139-140).  Again, these people have missed the point of Shaul’s words. 

 

But irrespective of how complicated and seemingly confused Shaul’s words may seem to many readers, there are some underlying factors that impact upon all, 100%, of them.  Many people choose to misuse, misquote and misunderstand Shaul’s writings.  However, when they do follow those distorted paths, they always fail to acknowledge these underlying truths. 

 

 

Shaul’s Words 

 

In the first instance, the Book quoted Shaul as telling Festus that he was not against, nor had he offended the Torah of the Jews or the Temple (Acts 25:8).  Surely, as late as Acts 25 (c62 CE), this is extraordinary that he would make this statement if he had just finished 25 years of preaching that the Torah was abolished and/or terminated.  

 

Still later, Shaul spoke to the Jewish leadership in Rome.  He told them that he had not committed any offense against the Jewish people or against the “customs of our fathers,” as cited earlier (Acts 28:17). 

 

A later chapter will focus on what all could have been included in those “customs.”  But for now, it is very certain that Shaul never once suggested that anything was wrong with the Torah or Jewish customs. 

 

As a minimum, the most fanatical and stereotyped Christian law hater must go to some other source, beyond the Apostle Shaul, to find any complaints or criticisms against YHWH’s Tanakh laws.  Previous comments also demonstrated that YESHUA was not against the Torah.  If both The MESSIAH and the Apostle Shaul were not against the Torah, who was? 

 

Throughout this study at hand, variously complicated remarks by Shaul (misused by law haters) will be analyzed and discussed at length to demonstrate how incredibly accurate Kefa was in his assessment of Shaul’s writings that they were complicated and hard to understand. 

 

A few samples will now be outlined to alert the reader that he/she must be careful about being dogmatic over Shaul’s words.  Some study is inevitably required to understand them.  The student of truth should not foolishly jump to any quick conclusions about Shaul’s remarks without some detailed analysis and study. 

 

 

Was Shaul Confused? 

 

For example, Shaul wrote in one place that desirably the unmarried and widows should remain unmarried (I Cor 7:8, 25-29); yet, he elsewhere said that young women should marry (I Tim 5:14).  On circumcision, he seemed to say that it was nothing (I Cor 7:18-19).  But elsewhere, he declared that it was profitable (Rom 2:25-29). 

 

In another case, he seemed to echo the remarks of the previously discussed Acts 15 conference on abstaining from meats offered to idols (Acts 15:29; I Cor 8:1-13); and in the same letter to the Corinthians, he went on to say to eat the meat sold in the shambles (meat markets) without question or concern (I Cor 10:25-31). 

 

Many Christians would argue to no end that Shaul was against Temple sacrifices (Heb 9:9-10; 10:3-4).  But he went to the Temple and offered a sacrifice, as noted earlier (Acts 21:26).  It is no wonder here, because there is not one speck of evidence suggesting Shaul was against any portion of the Torah--including sacrifices. 

 

Again, as outlined earlier, Shaul said as late as c62 CE that he was not against the Jews’ Torah or the Temple (Acts 25:8).  He went on to say that he had never wronged or offended either.  Obviously, Shaul had a different perspective on the law (the Torah) and the Temple than what Christians have assumed. 

 

To the Galatians, Shaul seemed to say that faith sets aside the works of the law (Gal 3:1-2).  However, Shaul wrote to the Romans that faith does not void the law; but establishes it, as elsewhere pointed out herein (Rom 3:31). 

 

Also, to the Romans, Shaul wrote that where sin abounds, grace did much more abound (Rom 5:20-21).  And in what some would say is a clear contradiction, Shaul asked in the same letter if the believer should continue in sin so that grace would abound (Rom 6:1-2)?  The answer is no! 

 

Thus, it is no wonder that Shaul would come along in the same letter to the Romans and declare that the hearers of the law (the Torah) only would not be justified, but the doers of the law (the Torah) would be justified (Rom 2:13). 

 

Shaul also affirmed that the law (the Torah) was kodesh (holy in the KJV), just and good (Rom 7:12; I Tim 1:8), that he delighted in it (Rom 7:22), and that he (Shaul) served (obeyed) the law (Torah--Rom 7:25). 

 

In the above illustrations of Shaul’s ideas, one could easily believe that he was not only inconsistent, but a bumbling idiot and a fool. 

 

This very situation has prompted a number of very sincere and dedicated people to abandon Shaul and his writings over the years--simply because without proper study and understanding, they make no sense at all.  Conversely, many Christians ignorantly grab them to support their false ideas about Shaul doing away with YAH’s Torah. 

 

 

Some Clarification 

 

Incidentally, before leaving the supposed confusion in the above contrasting statements of Shaul, it should be noted that with some study and understanding, it is easy to see that all of his statements are consistent and harmonious.  In a word, he was not a bumbling “idiot.”  He was intelligent and had exceptional understanding. 

 

For example, when he wrote to the Corinthians on marriage, he was writing to persons who would be faced with reconciliation (salvation and translation as mature adults, to be later covered) in the next several years. 

 

His letter to Timothy was perhaps 12 years or so later and the time (of that age end) was at hand.  He had to make provision for those “younger” women who would not be old enough or otherwise be eligible for salvation and translation then immediately at hand. 

 

Of course, Shaul believed in and taught physical circumcision, fully realizing that circumcision was something (per The ELOHIM).  It is the same thing as any of the other commands of YHWH (like not stealing or not murdering). 

 

Without dealing with the heart (circumcision of the heart, to be later discussed), physical circumcision was nothing--the same as the other commands of YHWH. 

 

Eating foods sacrificed to idols?  Well, the issue here is “knowledge” and what one knows.  Physically, the meat is the same as in other cases, assuming it is clean and the animal was properly bled.  Without knowledge, it is all right.  But apparently, with foreknowledge, reality changes.  The situation with the Temple and sacrifices will be described later in other remarks. 

 

 

Romans 10:4 

 

One of the favorite supposedly anti-law texts used by ill-advised Christians is Romans 10:4 which Shaul ostensibly wrote to declare that The MESSIAH “is the end of the law...” (Rom 10:4, per the KJV). 

 

Christians love this verse and quote it often to support their law termination ideas, never concerning themselves with other texts which are totally contradictory, as quoted herein. 

 

In “Messianic Jewish Manifesto” (p. 127), Dr David H. Stern tackles this problem by clarifying the presence of the Greek word “telos,” which often is translated incorrectly as “end or ends” (in the sense of termination)--when, in fact, it means more correctly “goal, purpose, consummation.”  Telos (a cognate of teleo, as used in Revelation 20) will be addressed further in a subsequent chapter. 

 

The actual solution to this state of confusion over telos was brought out in an article on the “Complete Jewish Bible,” appearing in the “Lederer” newsletter for Summer 1998 (p. 1).  The point Lederer made is that Romans 10:4 in various traditional English translations fails to pick upon what Shaul had in mind.  The better translation of the text is “For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah.” 

 

 

Romans 14:4-6 

 

Romans 14:4-6 seems to present a problem for a lot of Christians because they want to suppose that Shaul was making all days the same (thus, abolishing the kodesh [Hebrew word meaning set apart] aspects of the Seventh day Sabbath).  But Shaul was in no position to abolish “any” of YHWH’s laws (including the Sabbaths), nor would he have attempted to do so.  Different NT translations bring out the truth in this text--for example: 

 

Rom 4:4 “Who are you to judge another man’s servant” (per Lamsa)?  “It is his own master’s business whether he stands or falls” (per Williams).  “Yea, he shall be made to stand” (per ASV) “for God is able to make him” (per KJV).  (ed note: Yes, per YHWH’s promise of salvation, one day in the future all of Adam will be made to stand in the right way).

 

Rom 14:5 “One man esteemeth one day above another” (per KJV) (ed note: Yes, the issue here is not YHWH’s designated special days.  But the question here deals with man appointed or designated special days.  Thus, men like to say that Sunday is more important than Thursday or that December 25th and/or July 4th are more important than December 10th and/or July 10th.  But conversely, the Scriptures say that YHWH’s ordained special days [like the Sabbaths] are more important than other days--to include man’s ordained days).  “While another considers all days alike” (per 20th Century NT).  (ed note: In truth, per the Word, all manmade and/or man ordained special days are all exactly the same as far as YHWH is concerned.  Thus, January 1st is no different than February 1st and Sunday is no more important than Monday  Again the issue here is man ordained/designated special days as opposed to YHWH’s ordained special days.  The two types are not the same at all and cannot be lumped together as men like to do with this text).  “Let every man be fully assured” (per ASV). 

 

Rom 14:6 “”He who is mindful concerning a day’s duty is considerate of his master; and every one who is not mindful concerning a day’s duty is inconsiderate of his master (per Lamsa).  (ed note: Thus, we each had better esteem or regard the importance of a day as our master regards it in terms of relevance.  The slaves in man-governed households must be cognizant of the importance of the days deemed important by their human masters.  But believers in YESHUA must be cognizant of the significance of days as ordained or designated by their MASTER YHWH YESHUA--as He has deemed important in His instruction Book to man [Gen 2:2-3; Ex 20:8-11; Lev 23; Matt 12:8]). 

 

Therefore, in Romans 14:4-6, Shaul is merely declaring that in terms of the significance of days, one needs to do what his master wants.  Yes, bond-slaves in a human household must obey their human masters and bond-slaves (as believers in YESHUA are) in YHWH’s household must obey Him.

 

And regarding the set-apart or sanctity of the various holidays established by “man” (yes, Sunday, Christmas, Easter, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, etc), they are all the same as other days with no differences whatsoever in them, per the Book. 

 

Thus, a slave in a household would be forced and obligated to do whatever his master demands for those days.  So, if a master in a man-governed household keeps Sunday, it is obvious that the slaves therein will be forced by their master to recognize the relevance of that man-made holiday--perhaps not because they want to, but because their master will demand it. 

 

Conversely, for believers in YHWH YESHUA, they should spend some time and find out what their RULER (OWNER) wants on the recognition of the solemnity of particular days.  Does the Scriptures have anything to say on the setting aside of certain days for religious purposes?  Assuredly yes!  Should the followers of YESHUA recognize these days as established by their RULER/MASTER?  Does a cat have a tail? 

 

 

I Corinthians 9:20-21 

 

Despite the host of Scriptures indicating clearly that Shaul obeyed and supported the Torah, he seemingly wrote in I Corinthians 9:20-21 that he became under the law to gain those under the law and without law to those without law. 

 

Many Christians choose to understand this reference in the sense that Shaul was a gross hypocrite with double standards in front of different people--like with Jews, in contrast to pagans. 

 

But if the reader will carefully consider the context, it is clear that Shaul’s remarks were used in his contact and work with certain unbelieving Jews and so-called Gentiles (obviously, the text would have no meaning if the subjects were believers in YESHUA; so they had to be non-believers). 

 

To approach these unbelievers, Shaul had contact with them on their plain and level and without condemning their approach on the law in question (as noted earlier, nomos can refer to the Torah or man-made laws). 

 

In terms of I Corinthians 9:20-21, the previously quoted Dr. David H. Stern offers his ideas on the law involved (from the Greek “upo nomon,” referring to those under law in verse 20) as meaning man-made legalistic perversions of the Torah and not the Torah itself (“Jewish New Testament Commentary,” p. 464-465). 

 

In “Messianic Jewish Manifesto” (p. 170), Stern adds that the Greek “ennomos Christou” (in verse 21) actually means “en-lawed” or “enTorahed” of MESSIAH.  The writer of this study at hand agrees with Stern.  This idea will be discussed further in comments hereafter. 

 

Obviously, Shaul would have never hypocritically flip-flopped back and forth on the Torah which he repeatedly acknowledged and obeyed (and especially since the Torah defines sin).  Even I Corinthians 9:21 clarifies this condition because Shaul categorically declared that he did not act outside the purview of The EL’s Torah, but under the Torah--obviously, as amplified and clarified by YESHUA. 

 

 

Clarity 

 

Thus, the issue becomes manifest.  Shaul became as one of a certain class of “unbelieving Jews” to try to reach those Jews with YESHUA’s message of salvation.  But who were these unbelieving Jews who were following man-made perversions of the Torah? 

 

Later chapters will focus on the Haverim and Shammai Pharisees who made The EL’s law (Torah) of non-effect by their traditions (Matt 15:2-6), which eventually were codified in the Talmud. 

 

Portions of this Oral Law were often a focus on rituals and legalistic procedures which were actually unscriptural (hand-washings, etc).  Since YESHUA so sharply condemned these edicts, it is clear that Shaul, after conversion, would never have supported them in his obedience and dedication to the Torah. 

 

With this backdrop, it appears that Shaul went among these particular Jews and did not openly oppose their rituals and legalistic procedures (traditions of the elders).  But this is not to say that he openly supported and advocated this ritualism.  If so, he would have been a hypocrite--as a follower of YESHUA. 

 

Probably, he just kept his mouth shut and did not oppose these traditions of the elders openly in the presence of the Haverim and Shammai Pharisees, who were fully committed to these legalistic rituals. 

 

Of course, Shaul ignored (and was without) these traditions of the elders in respect to non-Jews, since they were no issue with them anyway.  Therefore, Shaul could preach to them and never have to discuss irrelevant Jewish traditional rituals which the pagans had no knowledge of and could have cared less about, since they were mute. 

 

 

C. E. B. Cranfield 

 

In his book on “YESHUA” (p. 45), Christian preacher Ron Moseley quotes C. E. B. Cranfield’s article on “St. Paul and the Law.”  Cranfield wrote that in the Greek language of the first century CE, there were no words which corresponded to the modern ideas of legalism, legalist or legalistic (as present in the Talmud--ed). 

 

Accordingly, he says that “We should always, be ready to reckon with the possibility that Pauline statements, which at first might seem to disparage the Law, were really directed not against the Law itself but against that misunderstanding and misuse of it.” 

 

In “Messianic Jewish Manifesto” (p. 130), the just cited Dr David H. Stern suggests that Cranfield’s remark goes on to explain the meaning of a couple of difficult Greek New Testament phrases used particularly by Shaul which have come to cause much confusion over the law or Torah. 

 

Dr Stern focuses upon the Greek “erga nomou” (which is usually translated as “works of the law”) and “upo nomon” (cited above, which is often translated as “under the law”). 

 

Thus, per Stern, “erga nomou” would actually refer to a “legalistic” observance of certain or particular Torah commands.  “Upo nomon” would mean being in subjection to the system that arises from perverting the Torah into legalism. 

 

This well known Messianic Jew translates his “Complete Jewish Bible” accordingly.  He adds that upo nomon conveys a sense of oppressiveness; which manifestly, the Torah is not. 

 

 

Galatians 3:24-25 

 

In their quest to find a loophole or gap in the Word which will allow them open, rebellious sin and contempt for the Torah, some Christians seize upon Galatians 3:24-25.  They argue that the law was only a schoolmaster to take the people of faith to the NT YESHUA (this is the pitch of the previously cited Sep 2000 “Destiny Letter”).  While that interpretation might be read into the text there, that’s not what Shaul had in mind. 

 

To understand and appreciate the apostle’s remarks about a schoolmaster, the student of truth must read and interpret Galatians 3:24-25 in its setting and in its whole context--which starts at around Galatians 3:17 and runs to at least Galatians 4:7.  This whole presentation communicates what Shaul was thinking about in his remarks--which seem to say that the law was a schoolmaster to lead one to The MESSIAH. 

 

First, on the historical and geographical setting, it must be realized that Shaul was writing to Israelite people out in the Diaspora and not to Israelites in Judea where the Temple stood.  In this regard, it was likely that some of these very Galatian Israelites were the people being addressed in Acts 15, discussed previously in this chapter. 

 

Another key facet of his comments concerns the date of his words.  While Galatians was perhaps one of the early epistles written by Shaul, it was nevertheless later in his ministry (maybe in the early 50s CE).  Thus, things would be winding down soon to the climax and the coming destruction of the Temple.  In this vein, he was writing to people who shortly would not have access to Jerusalem or the Temple. 

 

 

The Idea 

 

But importantly, in this lengthy presentation, Shaul laid out the key idea in Galatians 3:19 when he defined and delineated which law he had in mind in his dissertation.  As Shaul wrote it, he was addressing the law that was “added” because of transgressions till The SEED (YESHUA) would come.  This concept of an added law was broached in a former chapter. 

 

Suffice to say, this added law was added in the Torah after the people began engaging in sin.  The KJV has it in verse 19 “because of transgressions.”  To appreciate this situation, it will be necessary to digress to the Exodus and the giving of the laws of righteousness (the laws defining righteousness) to Moshe on Sinai (Ex 19:20--23:33). 

 

Per the record, Moshe received the law from The HIGHEST and came down from the mountain to address the congregation of Yisrael.  He told the people about YHWH’s mitzwot.  All of the people answered with one accord by saying that all the words that YHWH spoke, we will do (Ex 24:3).  Collective Yisrael, by her willful assent, entered into the marriage covenant with The ELOHIM at that precise moment in time.  

 

Soon thereafter, The MOST HIGH told Moshe to come back upon the mountain and He would give him the mitzwot on tables of stone so that Moshe could teach them to the people (Ex 24:12). 

 

Obviously, these tables of stone would allow the mitzwot to be codified in a written form for retention over the ages (in a way to allow their perpetual witness and use by the people).  Moshe obeyed. 

 

How much of the law did YHWH give Moshe on the stones?  Some believe that it was only the Ten Commandments.  Others make the more logical case that it was all of the law of righteousness given Moshe and confirmed by the congregation of Yisrael earlier (Ex 19:20 to 23:33).  Frankly, this writer believes that it was the latter. 

 

 

Next 

 

So, what happened next?  Well, in sequence, in the book of Exodus, it would appear that during this visit on the mountain, YHWH gave Moshe instructions on building the Tabernacle and establishing the Aaronic priesthood for the first time (Ex 26-31). 

 

But the timing of this event could have happened concurrently with or just after the next described event--that is, after sin entered the picture (actually, the timing would not matter because it’s doubtful that the Tabernacle/Temple, per se, involved added laws; although the sacrificial system at the Temple did so, as will now be shown). 

 

While Moshe was on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights (Ex 24:18), the people grew restless, impatient, rebellious and evil.  They prevailed upon Aaron to build them a golden calf to worship and one which would supposedly represent YHWH (Ex 32).  In other words, they wanted an image or representation of The ELOHIM (instead of An Invisible MOST HIGH).  Aaron accommodated them and their rebellion. 

 

Most students of the Word know the rest of this story.  YHWH told Moshe that the people had corrupted themselves while he was on Sinai (Ex 32:7).  Thus, Moshe came down from the mountain with the tables of stone.  He was upset with the rebellious, sinning people in their pagan idolatrous worship--going on in front of his own eyes.  So he broke the tablets of stone (Ex 32:19). 

 

Since the people had willfully entered into sin and transgression (in stark violation of the covenant that they had just agreed to in the marriage relationship), The ELOHIM then gave Yisrael the added laws addressing sin--both from the standpoint of those dealing with sin in the flesh by the Israelites and also those dealing with sacrifices and offerings for sin.  These laws were primarily covered in the book of Leviticus and later. 

 

Because the people had willfully entered into sin in rebellion to the covenant, The SOVEREIGN “added” these laws in Leviticus and later laws because of transgression (which is what Shaul referred to in Galatians 3:19). 

 

 

The Punishment Laws 

 

These added laws took two directions.  One was to cover the immediate implementation of physical punishment for sin (in the flesh).  This punishment will be addressed in some detail in later chapters.  And the second aspect was the moral reconciliation of the sinner in offering a sacrifice for certain sins (primarily those done in ignorance or those done in a sense of innocence). 

 

The most important aspect of this punishment was the imposition of the death penalty for certain capital crimes--like murder, idolatry, spiritualism (which would have convicted Mary Todd Lincoln and likely her husband Abe as well, to be later addressed), adultery, racial miscegenation, rape, sodomy (to cover Bill Clinton), breaking of the Seventh day Sabbath, a rebellious child who dishonors a parent, etc. 

 

The laws establishing the death penalty were particularly severe because death was imposed on the guilty party primarily by stoning--from the whole congregation of Yisrael (Lev 20:2, 27; 24:23; Num 14:10; 15:35-36; 35:17; Deut 13:10; 17:5; 21:21; 22:24). 

 

In some cases, death was imposed by burning (Lev 20:14).  The Mishnah says that this penalty was carried out by pouring molten lead into the mouth of the condemned. 

 

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 seems to have an additional requirement that after stoning some particular sinners to death, the dead bodies were to be hung on trees (“Soncino Chumash,” p. 1100).  Assuredly, this process would serve as a powerful witness to the people of the seriousness of sin and rebellion. 

 

Please understand that in stoning the guilty party to death, the whole congregation participated--the witnesses, the judges and the collective people. 

 

A modern jury would, of course, partake in rendering the execution.  This was an awesome, traumatic exercise to have to pick up stones and rocks and throw them to hit and ultimately kill the guilty party.  Truly, it was a schoolmaster to teach a hard lesson. 

 

Otherwise, the whole sacrificial and offering system for sin (which was available primarily in sins of ignorance, as elsewhere discussed herein) was also quite dramatic and terrifying to go through.  The sinner had to slay the substitute sacrifice himself.  It was a powerful teaching vehicle to take a favorite lamb into the tabernacle and be the person to take a knife and cut its throat to die as a substitute for one’s sin. 

 

 

Yes, Added Laws 

 

The point of this is that the laws on punishment for sin and the sacrificial and offering system to make atonement for sin were added after the people became transgressors.  These added laws were schoolmasters or teaching vehicles to indoctrinate the people on the horrors and seriousness of sin.  

 

Of course, in the final analysis, all of the punishment for sin was to point to and pave the way for YESHUA to come and become the perfect and complete sacrifice for all sins committed in a person’s past life. 

 

However, even in this situation, the capital crime laws were still in effect and good if the secular state would impose them, as should be the case. 

 

These sinners may die (if they get caught and prosecuted by the state), but they could achieve reconciliation and life through YESHUA from the moral point of view.  The Temple sacrificial system will be assessed in later comments.  Suffice to say, with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, any discussion on the continuing relevance of the Temple has been mute for the past 1,930 years. 

 

 

Back on the Mount

 

In going back to the situation with Moshe on the mount to receive the tables of stone, the sequential context of Exodus would lead one to believe that the actual laws establishing the tabernacle and the priesthood preceded the sin done by the people.  This may or may not be true since Moshe was on the mount 40 days and nights. 

 

It is possible that the portion of the law addressing the tabernacle and priesthood were given before the people entered into sin, after the sin commenced or concurrently with it. 

 

Whether these laws establishing the Temple were added laws or not is still open to question.  Some say that they were.  Frankly, this writer doubts it, but would not argue the point.  For sure, the sacrificial system (in Leviticus) did constitute added laws. 

 

In any event, the case can be made that the only laws given before sin entered the picture were those defining righteousness. 

 

The bottom line here is that probably Shaul was addressing these laws on punishment for sin (especially the death penalty laws), all of which served as schoolmasters to teach the people about the need to stop sinning and understand the supreme importance of the role of YESHUA as the perfect sacrifice to remove the moral effect of all past sins (so that in the resurrection, the sinner can receive the gift of life). 

 

 

Galatians 4:9-12 

 

The situation with Galatians 4:9-12 has been briefly cited in a previous chapter which outlined the work of Christian Identity leader Pete Peters of LaPorte, CO, to claim that this reference refers to the Sabbaths and festivals of The CREATOR.  In other words, Peters said that Shaul came along and ridiculed and made fun of YHWH’s Sabbaths and festivals in his use of the Greek stoicheion at Galatians 4:9. 

 

Suffice to say, stoicheion does not apply to The ELOHIM or His words in Galatians 4:9.  Generally, it refers to demonic doctrines and teachings made by fleshly humans, as will be described and explained in later chapters herein.  Subsequent chapters will also focus upon certain Talmudic teachings among the Jews which assumed the level of Scriptural commandments/mitzwot in the first century CE. 

 

Many of these doctrines came from apostate Jews or people whom the so-called NT Gospels call Judeans (actually, many of these persons were not Jews at all, but were only pretenders at best--as will be explained in later chapters).  These evil teachers in NT days were supposedly of the Jerusalem Shammai Pharisee and/or Haverim sects.  Many good Jews opposed their bad stoicheion teachings (including Shaul). 

 

YESHUA had some conflicts with some of these same bad Jews over how to keep the Sabbaths, and on issues dealing with healings and gleanings (and not on whether to keep the Sabbaths--keeping the Sabbaths was never a question in the NT--just on how to keep the Sabbaths). 

 

Anyway, the essence of the problem addressed by Shaul in Galatians 4:9-12 focuses upon some bad teachings being promoted by evil Jews (or Jew pretenders) and not on the mitzwot of The CREATOR.  Only a rebellious fool or idiot would attribute these remarks to the commandments of YHWH. 

 

 

Colossians 2:16-17 

 

Another “Pauline” text of enormous confusion to Christians is at Colossians 2:16-17 which Churchianity uses to abolish the sanctity of certain days defined by The ELOHIM in His Word.  Again, as in all other cases, Christendom has missed the point entirely on this message. 

 

True, this context does address certain Scripturally required days, including the Sabbaths (plural, suggesting the annual Sabbaths as well as the weekly Sabbaths) and particularly the feast days (especially Passover, which is at issue in Colossians 2:16 with the words “in meat or in drink,” which in the Greek are used elsewhere in reference to Passover). 

 

YHWH’s Word declares that these festival and/or Sabbath days be set aside as important and as carrying religious significance.  But there are always a number of items associated with these occasions which have not been legislated upon by YHWH. 

 

Take the case of the Scriptural Passover.  The law prescribes that it be observed early on the 14th day of Aviv (the first Hebrew month) and to include a meal (which today probably should conform to the established Jewish Seder).  Just before The MESSIAH’s death, He added an observance of foot washing among believers and attached some significance to certain grape juice and unleavened bread symbols. 

 

The Book covers these things and they are fixed and required.  There is no question or confusion over these aspects of what The MOST HIGH has legislated upon.  They have already been determined and established by YHWH in His Word.  There is absolutely nothing discretionary about what the Scriptures already prescribe. 

 

 

Discretionary Items 

 

However, there are some things regarding the Passover which are not covered in the Book.  For instance, believers should assemble at some place or someone’s house to partake of the Passover festival.  But whose house or where?  Thus, this is a discretionary item which cannot be and was not covered by the law. 

 

Other questions might concern what kind or where the believers will get the grape juice and unleavened bread for the occasion (the Passover bread and drink of Col 2:16).  Should one of the women bake the bread or should it be bought?  Obviously, these are issues which are not spelled out in the law.  They are discretionary items which will have to be settled before the event takes place. 

 

Incidentally, the presence of this need to establish customs, standards, guidelines and practices to cover discretionary items explains The MESSIAH’s reference to binding and loosing (Matt 16:19; 18:18), which will be elaborated upon in a later chapter. 

 

So, for these discretionary items that are essential to know, but which are not defined in YHWH’s Torah/written Word, Shaul says that the “Body of The MESSIAH” (the Assembly or Congregation of believers) must judge them and establish them, in order that the members can obey the Torah and conduct the Passover meeting. 

 

Part of the problem in understanding this text is that English translators of the Greek incorrectly add the word “is” in to make the judgment seem to read that the feasts are shadows of things, but the substance or body “is” of The MESSIAH (Col 2:17). 

 

In truth, there is no “is” in the text and Shaul defined the Body of The MESSIAH as the Assembly earlier at Colossians 1:18, 24. 

 

Beyond these few explanations, it should be noted that “all” (100%) of the supposed problems and points of confusion in Shaul’s writings can be understood to be consistent and totally harmonious with all of the other Scriptures. 

 

In no case, did the Apostle Shaul ever set aside or attempt to set aside any of the Words of YHWH in any of his preachings, teachings and writings.  If he would have done so, then there would have been something wrong with Shaul and something justifying setting him aside. 

 

 

Forged Letters, Revisited 

 

A former chapter briefly mentioned the reality of II Thessalonians 2:2 which allowed that there were some forged letters floating around that were alleged to be from Shaul.  Any discussion on Shaul must acknowledge this fact and its possible impact upon the teachings of Shaul. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 36--Love and the Torah

 

 

Love in the Scriptures 

 

Many Christians like to criticize and condemn the law (the Torah); all the while that they walk around and claim that they are “righteous and good” because they practice what they call “love,” as if there is no love apart from their mis-interpretations of the Word.  A good illustration of this Christian confusion over love was written by liberal Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic nun, in her book “A History of God.” 

 

Armstrong asserts that Christian fundamentalists seem to have little regard for the loving compassion of “Christ” (ibid, p. 390).  Of course, Christian fundamentalists are apt to be somewhat more obedient and certainly a “little” more serious on the Word than much of the rest of Christendom. 

 

In the eyes of Christians, like Armstrong, love seems to be something quite different than the obedience and seriousness attributable to fundamentalists.  While Churchianity seems hopelessly incapable of ever understanding it, but the truth is that it is obedience of the law (the Torah) which constitutes true righteousness and love. 

 

 

The Apostle Yohanan 

 

The Apostle Yohanan wrote a fascinating little remark when he said that everyone that loves knows The ELOHIM and everyone who does not know The ELOHIM does not love (I Jo 4:7-8).  Therefore, Scriptural love is closely attached to a knowledge of The MOST HIGH.  The acquisition of knowledge involves study.  Is it possible to love without Scriptural study? 

 

In another instance, Yohanan wrote that one must not “love” in speech and talk, but must love in deeds, actions and in truth (I Jo 3:18).  Can one love if he or she merely talks about it and has no deeds and acts of love?  Can one love if he or she is not in truth?   It doesn’t seem possible, does it? 

 

 

The Two Great Summaries of the Law 

 

On love, The MESSIAH had some choice remarks when He quoted Moshe and the Torah (Matt 22:35-39; Mk 12:28-33; Lu 10:27) by saying that the duty of His followers was and is to love The ELOHIM first with all of their hearts, souls and mights (quoting the shema at Deut 6:4-5; and second, to love their (Hebrew) rea (translated as neighbour) as themselves (quoting Lev 19:18, discussed earlier). 

 

YESHUA then went on to declare that all of the law (Torah) and prophets (which are two of the three main sections or divisions of the Hebrew Tanakh) hang on these two great commands from the law (Torah) which He had just recited (Matt 22:40).   In effect, He was saying that the two great commands were summaries merely of all of the law in the Old Testament Scriptures. 

 

In an article on the “Decalogue and the New Testament” in the Nov/Dec 1990 “Jerusalem Perspective” (p. 6-8), former Hebrew University Professor David Flusser said that in Second Temple days, people held that the first five commandments in the Decalogue (Ex 20) were summarized by love of The MOST HIGH, and that the second five commandments summarized love of neighbour (Hebrew rea). 

 

Flusser quoted the famous teacher, Hillel, who commented on the Jewish golden rule of love of rea, and said that it was “the whole Torah (law or instruction from Genesis to Deuteronomy) and all the rest is explication (meaning that The ELOHIM’s commandments simply spell out and interpret the golden rule)--go and learn it.” 

 

This distinction between commandments expressing love of The ELOHIM, as opposed to love of rea, can be identified by two different Hebrew concepts.  Commandments outlining love of YHWH are called “mishpatim,” while those indicating love of a rea are called “chukkim” (“Soncino Books of the Bible,” Ezekiel, p. 25). 

 

 

Matthew 7:12 

 

In another wonderfully related statement, The MESSIAH also declared that “whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the Torah and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12) or as R. Akiva stated “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” and as Hillel put it to a pagan “what is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a, per Flusser). 

 

Shaul gets in on this question of love when he wrote that love of one’s “rea” constituted or summarized the latter five of the Ten Commandments (relating to obligations one Israelite was to have toward his fellow Israelites) given by The SUPREME to Moshe at Sinai (Ex 20:13-17; Rom 13:8-10). 

 

As David Flusser pointed out, this thinking prevailed among religious Jews in Second Temple days (Nov/Dec 1990 “Jerusalem Perspective,” p. 6-8). 

 

Since the part of the Ten Commandments that regulated Israelites’ duties to each other was summarized in the law by the “love of rea” (Lev 19:18), then is it not apparent that the first five commandments (Ex 20:1-10) are likewise summarized in the shema in love of The HIGHEST (Deut 6:4-5), as held in Second Temple Judaism (and as mentioned by David Flusser)? 

 

The place one must come to on this line is that when one does not steal from his rea, does not covet the property of his rea, does not murder his rea, etc, then that constitutes love of his rea.  Likewise, when one worships The ELOHIM alone, does not practice idolatry, does not misuse the name of YHWH and observes and keeps YAH’s Seventh day Sabbath, then that constitutes love of The SOVEREIGN YHWH. 

 

Consequently, when a person obeys, accomplishes and fulfills (not terminates) The CREATOR’s mitzwot (from the Old Testament), then such actions and deeds constitute love (Rom 13:8, 10; Gal 5:14). 

 

Of course, other New Testament writers would repeatedly echo this truth by saying that the keeping of YHWH’s laws and commandments represent love (Jo 14:15, 21-24; 15:9-20; I Jo 2:3-5; 3:10-18; 3:22-24; 5:2-3; II Jo 1:6). 

 

 

Love Equals the Law and the Law Equals Love 

 

So therefore, love summarizes the entire Torah (I Jo 4:7-21).  Obviously, this axiom can be restated to say that obedience of the Torah equals and means the same thing as love. 

 

Thus, when one fulfills (obeys) the law (Torah), then he/she has loved or when one loves, he/she has fulfilled (accomplished, not terminated) the law (Rom 13:8).  Some more examples of this linkage can be recognized clearly when one looks carefully at some specific laws. 

 

The law expressly stated that a Hebrew slave was to be freed in the seventh year (Ex 21:2); that one should not afflict or wrong the widow, orphan, deaf, blind or poor hired servant (Ex 22:22; Lev 19:14; Deut 24:14-15); that one should use just weights (Lev 19:35-36); and that one should even show mercy to dumb animals, as touched upon previously (Ex 23:4-5, 10-12; Deut 22:1-4, 6-7, 10; 25:4); etc. 

 

In terms of having a welfare system, the Word (specifically the Torah) defines the best one of all.  For example, the Torah says that a farmer should leave some of his agricultural crops in the field for the needy to harvest for sustenance. 

 

Yes, the produce is to be left in the field for the poor to harvest for food because the Book declares that he who won’t work is not to eat (Ex 23:10-11; Deut 24:19-22; II Thes 3:10).  Thus, the poor will have food to eat if they work for it. 

 

In regards to fair play with the rea (a Hebrew word meaning racial kinsmen--as described in a prior chapter), the law prescribes that a fair price be paid and received in commercial transactions (Lev 25:14) and that no interest be charged on loans to a brother (Ex 22:25; Lev 25:35-37; Deut 23:19; Neh 5:7) under penalty of death (Ezek 18:8,13,17; 22:12). 

 

Most people can never get it through their heads, but these laws contain the greatest concepts of charity in existence.  They establish broad principles of doing true good to others.  What a shame it is that liberals, do-gooders, and misinformed humanitarians know nothing about YHWH’s wonderful mitzwot and they could care less about finding out about them as well. 

 

 

Maimonides 

 

Beyond all of these marvelous and wonderful laws, there is still one more that is most gracious and compassionate.  Moshe wrote it by saying that if thy brother be waxen poor, then we are to uphold him and not take increase from him (Lev 25:35-36).  In short, the believer is commanded to help and support needy brethren according to their needs and to take no profit or gain from them in any circumstance. 

 

“Maimonides The Commandments” perceptively notes on this charity commandment that the distribution of charity is the distinguishing mark of righteousness in the seed of Avraham--per the commandment to his descendants to keep the way of YHWH and do righteousness and justice (Gen 18:19). 

 

Also, the Israelites individually were commanded to give generously (by law) to their poor brethren (Deut 15:7-11).  Actually, there are a host of mitzwot in the Torah which offer specifics on accomplishing charity in the context of righteousness and justice. 

 

Moreover, the prophets had many remarks and observations to report over the years on this issue as well.  For example, Isaiah 54:14 can be interpreted to teach that Yisrael will not be established, nor will the true faith endure, save through charity (“Maimonides The Commandments,” p. 209). 

 

Finally, as Maimonides reported (p. 209), quoting the Talmud, the best charity is done in secret.  And from the Mishnah, he said that there was a chamber in the Temple called the “Chamber of the Silent” where the rich placed their alms and the poor secretly received them, in ignorance of each other’s identity. 

 

 

The Tragedy in Canyon Creek

 

In 1995, this writer lived in Canyonville, Oregon.  In Oregon history, Canyonville became important in the North-South flow of people and commerce because Canyonville lies at the mouth of Canyon Creek which cuts a path to the South through the mountains.  There was an incident in Canyon Creek which really made this writer appreciate how bad the modern United States is in terms of the charity theme. 

 

Perhaps because Canyonville lies astride Interstate 5 (which runs from Seattle in the North to Los Angeles in the South), a man and his wife and his young daughter from the American South (Dixie) ended up one day in Canyonville, broke, down and out and with no money to buy food and other necessities or find a way to get out of Oregon and back to their homeland. 

 

To compound the problem, the man was sick and in need of health care (perhaps a diabetic).   Maybe it was his seemingly hopeless situation, combined with a probable concern for his wife and daughter.  But whatever, he apparently decided to end his plight.  One morning his body was found drown in Canyon Creek.  While the background for his death was not totally clear, the evidence was that of suicide. 

 

A local man took up some collections locally to obtain sufficient money to get the woman and child back to their family and friends in the US Southland.  It is now unclear what happened to the body of the deceased.  Possibly he was buried in a pauper’s grave in Oregon or maybe someone paid for his body to be returned to the South. 

 

Regardless, when this incident came to my attention, it really was very sad and depressing to me personally.  The despair this man faced ringed home to me because it is very easy to find oneself down and out in a strange land.  True, maybe we are sometimes or even often guilty of being irresponsible and careless to bring our troubles on ourselves. 

 

But then something is lacking in society when there would seem to be no way out of the hopelessness which this man obviously believed that he faced in 1995.  He apparently gave up and threw in the towel. (figuratively speaking). 

 

The purpose in mentioning this tragic story and the despair this family faced is simply to say that this situation is not what YHWH stipulated for his people Yisrael and their relationship one to another in the sense of them being rea brethren and the Scriptural proscriptions for charity.  Something else was needed in Canyonville in 1995. 

 

A later chapter will tell the story of the famous Tom Dooley (correctly Dula) and his neighbors, the Foster family, and the despair that they faced in Western North Carolina just after the US Civil War.  What we need is a focus on the Torah and its requirements for charity in the context of the rea brethren.  We simply don’t have this reality present in modern America or any other country in the world for that matter. 

 

 

Love Is Obedience of YAH’s Torah

 

Therefore, beyond the clear statements in the law (Torah) about the variously described positive and negative duties, The MESSIAH communicated that the law (Torah) also contains some “weightier” matters like judgment, loyalty (Hebrew hesed) and faith (Matt 23:23, apparently quoting Mic 6:8) which are an integral part of the law (Torah) and must be obeyed as well (i.e. Ex 23:2; Lev 19:15; Deut 24:16-18; 25:1). 

 

This category likely includes some of YHWH’s wonderful laws on charity, as mentioned above.  Isn’t it patently clear that when one obeys the law (the Torah), he or she is expressing love?  Manifestly, love is the obedience of YHWH’s Torah. 

 

The Apostle Shaul wrote a fascinating little dissertation on the importance of love to the Corinthians (I Cor 13:1-12).  In that message, he used the Greek word “agape” which is best translated as “love.”  Mistakenly, the King James translation used the word “charity” here instead of love.  But the reader can recognize the issue of love. 

 

As Shaul put it, nothing matters in truth beyond love (obedience of YHWH’s law/Torah).  Thus, if a person gives all of his money away to feed the poor and he has not love, it means zero.  If he has all knowledge and understanding, but lacks love, he is nothing.  If he has all faith and no love, his faith means zero. 

 

And if he gives his body up to be burned alive at the stake (because of that faith, as so many religious martyrs have done over the centuries), it means absolutely nothing without love (obedience of YAH’s Torah). 

 

What a tragedy it has been that millions of Christian martyrs died (many by being burned alive at the stake by their fellow Christians--the ruling Catholic authorities and/or sometimes Protestant governments), all the while that they flagrantly disobeyed YAH’s laws on the premise that they were abolished.  Was it love for these people to die while disobeying YHWH’s Torah? 

 

 

Distinguishing Between the Physical and the Spiritual 

 

This mention by YESHUA of weightier matters in the Torah brings up a need for some clarification.  It is true that there are a host of commandments which are expressed literally and involve physical actions (as most of the 613 mitzwot precisely state).  But there are spiritual aspects of obeying YHWH’s Torah, as outlined in Matthew 23 when YESHUA condemned certain scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy. 

 

In an article on “Work’s Righteousness” (p. 9), the previously cited Oct-Dec 1999 Hebrew Roots distinguishes between obeying the letter of the law so as to appear righteous before men, and the spirit of the law so as to appear righteous before The ELOHIM (which is the message of Matthew 23--in that men can appear righteous and good on the outside while they are evil and bad on the inside). 

 

This Hebrew Roots’ article gives the illustration of the letter of the law which prohibits murder.  However, the spirit of the law goes beyond that to prohibit hatred (as often, the real basis for murder) which is beyond the letter of the law in order to reach out to what is in one’s heart (hatred) besides what is in one’s hand (murder). 

 

The whole thrust of Matthew 23 and indeed much of the NT addresses both of these aspects of obeying the Torah.  As YESHUA demonstrates, it is simply not enough to flee from murder.  But also, there is the need to not even contemplate hate (which can produce murder). 

 

Many uninformed Christians wish to believe that they obey and respond to the spiritual aspects of righteousness, as taught in the New Testament.  But if one does not obey the Torah literally and physically as it reads, how in the world can he argue that he keeps the weightier, spiritual aspects of the Torah.  Obviously, obedience involves obeying both the physical and spiritual aspects of the Torah. 

 

In Matthew 23:23, The MESSIAH focused upon tithing--which was a very physical, literal requirement of the Torah.  As YESHUA said, this physical law should have been obeyed in its literal sense (“these ought ye to have done,” as stated in the KJV).  But it is then that He goes beyond the physical into the realm of the spiritual in terms of what is in the heart. 

 

Incidentally, many or most of these Christians (who march around and claim to be in Scriptural love--because of something that they say is in their hearts) inevitably offer a very physical illustration of how wrong they are.  Most of them are very self righteous and proud (the evils of pride will be addressed in later chapters).  Of course, pride is sin and it cuts proud people off from The HIGHEST. 

 

Yet, many of these Christians brag and boast about their supposed righteousness.  They inevitably enter into a trance to start mumbling something about being saved (right now) and going to heaven and that they are good.  Once they start bragging about being saved and being among the righteous saints, they are expressing pride and vanity (especially since most of them are hypocrites, wallowing in blatant sin). 

 

 

The Torah Is Righteousness 

 

Much of Christendom can never get it or ever be able to understand it, but it is the Torah which establishes righteousness.  YAH’s mitzwot provide the standards of truth which measure and define righteousness and unrighteousness (Deut 6:25; Ps 119:106, 160; Eccl 12:13).  And of course, the Torah is truth (Neh 9:13; Ps 111:7-8; 119:160-172). 

 

Since the Torah represents truth, love and righteousness, the Psalmist said that he had affection for the Torah and that it was perfect (Ps 19:7-10; 119:18, 92, 97-106, 160-172).  And as noted in some earlier comments, Shaul declared that the law (Torah) was kodesh (translated as holy), just and good; that he delighted in it; and that the doers of the law (Torah) would be justified (Rom 2:13; 7:12, 22; I Tim 1:8). 

 

In regards to this theme that it is the law/Torah which constitutes righteousness, it must be observed that Shaul expressly stated this fact on more than one occasion. 

 

For example, he wrote that Moshe established the righteousness of or in the Torah (Rom 10:5), and that the purpose of The MESSIAH was to bring the believer to that righteousness (Rom 10:4); so that that righteousness (of the Torah) might be fulfilled (the Greek pleroo, meaning performed, lived and accomplished--not terminated) in each believer (Rom 8:4). 

 

Yohanan added that one can know The HIGHEST by keeping His laws (I Jo 2:3); that if one claims to love YHWH and does not keep His commandments, then he is liar (I Jo 2:4); that the patience of the elect people is that they keep the commandments (Rev 14:12); and that blessed are those who do keep the commandments (Rev 22:14). 

 

YESHUA provided some of the most powerful statements of all on the Torah when He declared that one must keep The ELOHIM’s commandments to enter into life (Matt 19:17), and that His disciples are known by their love (obedience of the Torah) for one another (Jo 13:34-35). 

 

 

Dr Robert L Lindsey 

 

Dr Robert L Lindsey, former Pastor of the Narkis Street Baptist Church congregation in Jerusalem, Israel (1945-1952 and 1954-1986), and a Hebrew-Greek scholar of some reputation, wrote at least two books which commented upon the Hebrew concept of righteousness. 

 

In one instance, Lindsey focused his attention on The MESSIAH’s famous Sermon on the Mount where the King James text reads “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake:  for their’s is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:10). 

 

Lindsey’s study of the underlying Hebrew prompted him to conclude that the statement more correctly should read “blest are the righteousness-driven” (“Jesus, Rabbi & Lord”).  Per this interpretation, it was this first century CE righteous driven election (with a passion, zeal and dedication for righteousness [the Torah]) who would see the kingdom of heaven. 

 

In his second important work on this subject, Lindsey directed his attention to the Hebrew concept of righteousness (Hebrew tsedakah, Greek dikaiosyne) and observed that as The ANOINTED ONE used it, it correctly was synonymous with redemption (from “The Jesus Sources:  Understanding the Gospels”).  Of course, redemption is thoroughly linked to righteousness. 

 

 

Greed and Selfishness Oppose Love 

 

Having outlined some of The ELOHIM’s wonderful, perfect and marvelous mitzwot that establish love and true righteousness, it would be well to take note of a very contrary profile exhibited in the context of human greed and selfishness.  Manifestly, human greed and selfishness over-shadow YHWH’s various welfare and charity laws, as outlined in the above comments. 

 

The commercial world of the Western Christian civilization best illustrates the presence and popularity of greed.  In the vein of business and profits, the concept of greed, get and acquire completely dominates the entire culture.  Most people never begin to understand it, but YHWH’s wonderful Torah address commercial transactions like it addresses all other aspects of human life on this planet.

 

Future chapters in this work will focus upon YHWH’s mitzwot dealing with excessive and extortionate profits, in terms of commercial dealings, and how the present Christian culture completely ignores and violates The ELOHIM’s wonderful laws on this question.  But for now, a look is needed at the overall broad issue of greed and selfishness, in the context of YAH’s Torah. 

 

 

The Definition 

 

The “Funk & Wagnalls’ Standard Desk Dictionary” (p. 282) defines greed as “Selfish and grasping desire for possession, esp. of wealth; avarice, covetousness.”  Please note on greed that the student of truth is immediately thrust into the role of confronting the tenth commandment on coveting.  Manifestly, greed is also a part and parcel of human lust and carnality. 

 

Going on, this same dictionary defines “greedy” as “1. Excessively eager for acquisition or gain; covetous; grasping.  2. Having an excessive appetite for food and drink; voracious; gluttonous” (ibid, p. 282). 

 

This source links “selfishness” to selfish and gives for “selfish”-- “1. Caring chiefly for oneself or one’s own interests or comfort, esp. to the point of disregarding the welfare or wishes of others.  2. Proceeding from or characterized by undue love of self” (ibid, p. 607). 

 

While the two ideas of selfishness and greed are not exactly the same, they are closely related and are often present in the same people.  Apparently, selfishness is the more common characteristic which is present in almost all persons to some degree. 

 

The previously discussed “evil eyed” individual is assuredly selfish, although he might not necessarily be equally as greedy.  As earlier described, an “evil eyed” person is profoundly tight and stingy.  Obviously, selfishness is clearly a motivational factor in being tight and stingy. 

 

Many individuals have huge doses of all three characteristics.  Many are selfish, greedy and evil eyed.  Some persons are so profoundly strong on these evil attributes that they quickly stand out in terms of social intercourse with others.  Conversely, the subtle selfish person may not be as readily ascertainable since selfishness is such a common trait in the general population. 

 

If there is anything that is the direct antithesis of YHWH’s laws on charity and fair play, it is selfishness and greed.  While these attributes may be perfectly acceptable and allowable in the current Christian culture, civilization and society, they are not to be a part of The ELOHIM’s kingdom and government.  They will be outlawed in the future. 

 

Some persons may wish to dispute the charge just made by this writer on the acceptability of greed and selfishness in the present Christian culture, but that statement is the truth.  Furthermore, it needs to be linked to the reality that right now in the age end (and we are in the age end), greed and selfishness have accelerated to unprecedented new heights. 

 

 

The Slick Sample 

 

While these evil attributes are extremely prevalent in modern America, the best single example of them probably lies with Bill “Slick” Clinton, mentioned previously.  His character, or rather lack of character, will be examined in future remarks.  But for now, it must be acknowledged that he personally operates in an extremely selfish profile. 

 

He is ruthless in practicing deceit and telling lies always to benefit his selfish ambitions.  He has used, misused and abused people, right and left, over many years in his quest to gain power and retain power.  All of his decisions seem to be predicated upon his own personal selfish interests.  

 

Whenever he gets caught in some of his nefarious deeds, he expects some of his friends, colleagues and assistants to take the fall (blame) and shield him from any adverse political fall outs.  In the case of adversaries, Slick has an army of government-paid agents and provocateurs to go out in the public and condemn his opponents. 

 

Greed is grossly present in many of Slick’s activities--like his historic womanizing and in his seizures of inordinate power over the people of the United States.  His appetite for women has to be one most extraordinary of a married Christian practitioner in American history.  He has used and cast off so many women over the years that it is hard to keep track of his conquests. 

 

Perhaps the best illustration of Slick Clinton’s incredible obsession with greed, get and acquire concerns his quest for power.  In a sense, he reached the ultimate power (at least, in terms of national America) with his election to the presidency--not once, but twice. 

 

 

Future Clinton Plans 

 

These lines are being written in mid 2003.  Of course, the American public has been all hyped up on the prospects of President George W. Bush--now in the White House.  However, as outlined in the Prologue, some dark clouds are on the horizon. 

 

Despite all of this hype and media attention on the supposed transition to Bush, the writer of this study at hand has taken the position that Clinton would not willingly step down.  His mentality and obsessive greed for power was not about to let him give up the US presidency, if there was anyway to avoid it.  From the very beginning, Slick and his wife Hillary had plans for a long tour in the Washington White House. 

 

The best guess is that back in 1992, they both hoped he would win and serve for two terms.  Then, “Co-president” Hillary Clinton could run, win and serve two terms in the White House.  Between the two of them, they hoped for sixteen years of power over the American people. 

 

But with all of Bill’s womanizing and dishonor heaped upon the presidency, it became apparent that Hillary could not just waltz into the US White House.  Instead, she needed a build up politically as a preparatory move to the presidency.  Evidently, she left this option open with her run for the Senate from the state of New York as an out of state, carpetbagger candidate (where she won in Nov 2000). 

 

This writer takes the stance that Slick allowed this effort to proceed because he had had plans on suspending the US Constitution and Congress and implementing marital law at a first opportunity (which is still possible if he can be returned to power from a constitutional convention or a Hillary presidency/vice-presidency--if Hillary gets in, it means a return of Slick, as he will be the brains behind her skirt). 

 

As this study will demonstrate later, a host of things are building up to a crisis stage, which, just might allow this Clinton maneuver. 

 

In any case, Bill Clinton is apparently the most greedy and evil person of all who has ever occupied the American White House.  He is totally dedicated to self and self perpetuation.  Assuredly, his greed for power is unlimited.  Clearly, he plans on regaining power, if possible in the US or at the UN (this study suggests that he will regain power and likely impose martial law--as fast as possible, so he can stay in power). 

 

 

The Epitome of Greed in America 

 

Besides Slick and Hillary Clinton, the whole Christian society is now full of greed.  Everybody (in the generic sense) is out to get all that they can get.  The modern peoples are grossly selfish. 

 

One of the most profound illustrations of greed in the generic sense surfaces in the modern obsession over playing the stock market and gambling (to include lotteries and games of chance).  Legalized lotteries are now a $600 billion annual industry in the US (May 1999 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 48). 

 

The popularity of the stock and financial markets and the evident speculation involved is demonstrated by the reality that now almost all news broadcasts include summaries of the latest stock and financial market statistics.  The public is obsessed with this possibility of gain without working for it. 

 

Gambling has historically been an extremely popular phenomenon among Adam man for thousands of years.  It symbolizes greed, get and acquire more than perhaps any thing else.  In recent years, gambling has become so popular that numerous state and local governments are getting in on the act with government sponsored lotteries. 

 

The Christian Churches have followed suit by sponsoring and promoting bingo and other games of chance to not only make money, but to appease and pacify the excessive greed and get of their gullible members.  Yes, almost everybody is in on the gambling racket in some way in the modern contemporary world. 

 

Statisticians have correctly reported that the chances of winning one of these big lotteries is less than getting hit by a bolt of lightening out of the heavens.  Still people continue to plow vast sums of money (and sometimes all the money they possess) to pursue these goals of greed, get and acquire. 

 

 

Some More Illustrations of Greed 

 

This writer lived for sometime in Eastern Washington state, and some years ago used water from a well shared with a few other families.  In late summer, the water pressure sometimes went down and there were actually times when water was simply not available.  In short, the well dried up for temporary periods. 

 

Another person using water from this well was totally greedy and irresponsible about it.  He watered his lawn and a large field that had a few horses.  It seemed like he could or should have subdued the greed momentarily since we all would have to pay a price down the road.  But he could have cared less.  His only concern was his own selfish needs. 

 

 

Another Christian Neighbour 

 

One more case of greed also comes from Washington state.  In 2001, this writer had a neighbour who was almost 50 years old and was drawing social security for disability.  He was supposedly a good Christian and went occasionally to a local Baptist Church. 

 

There didn’t seem to be anything seriously wrong with him physically (his problems seemed to be mental), though he did go to a doctor on any and all health problems which surfaced in his life.  The doctor was in a town about 30 miles away. 

 

The local senior center provided some assistance for “older” or disabled people in need of  transportation for doctor visits.  They actually dispatched a car and driver to come to a sick person’s house, pick him (or her) up, take him to the doctor, pick him up after the visit, take him to the pharmacy and then take him back home. 

 

All of this sounded well and good.  But since the effort was a voluntary one, it was rendered on a real need basis.  In other words, the presumption was that the person truly was incapacitated and could not drive or provide transportation on his/her own.  

 

This brought up the case of my neighbour who made a large number of doctor visits for all kinds of reasons (since the visits and all prescriptions were free and cost him nothing).  The man had the senior center come the 30 miles out to his house to take him to town and then drive the 30 miles back to take him home. 

 

Well and good, except the man had a Washington state drivers’ license (despite some mental problems) and a truck which he drove all over the country for his personal benefit and pleasure.  He frequently drove the 30 miles to town to shop, visit or whatever--never with any difficulty. 

 

The only time that he seemed to become incapacitated and needing transportation was when he was ready for one of his regular doctor visits or going to the pharmacy to get medicine.  Whenever free transportation could be called upon, he seemed to take full advantage of the offer and gave no thought at all to the driving that was required to chauffeur him when he could just as well use his own vehicle, certainly in most visits. 

 

 

Selfishness From the Same Man 

 

This same man mowed the grass, removed the snow from driveways and done a few other odds and ends at some five rent houses for his landlord in exchange for rent at one of them.  Guess which house he “always” worked on first? 

 

Yes, he always mowed his own grass first before the others.  He always used the snow machine to clear his own driveway first before the others.  He would always do everything needed on his own rent house first before doing the other four.  Often, it seemed that he was not particularly concerned with the other houses, as long as his own house got taken care of. 

 

While this may sound good for most people, it was, for him, a very questionable practice since he received free or partially free rent for taking care of the other four houses. 

 

Therefore, if the lawn mower or snow machine broke down (as sometimes happened), it typically broke down after doing his own yard and before doing the yards of the other tenants.  Maybe, he was happy then that the machine did break down and he wouldn’t have to do the other houses.  With a man like this, was it possible that he sometimes contributed to the machine breakdowns? 

 

The owner of the houses lived some 20 miles away and was rarely around.  Thus, he did not supervise his maintenance man regularly.  In that situation, the maintenance man was often a loose cannon to do about whatever he pleased (sort of like Oliver North, who worked in the Reagan White House some years ago). 

 

These two examples of a supposedly good Christian man demonstrate the pervasiveness of particularly greed to a certain extent on the doctor visits and selfishness on the man’s focus upon his own life and needs.  In virtually any discussion on almost anything a person will do today, one of the first questions asked by almost all people is--what is in it for me? 

 

 

The Dilemma on Selfishness

 

The above discussion on the Christian man and his incredible selfishness (in always taking care of his own needs first before doing his job) brings up a most fascinating quotation from the great Jewish scholar Hillel, who preceded YESHUA in the late first century BCE, as reported in the No. 10, 1999, “Discovering the Bible” (p. 12).  

 

Hillel said:  “If I am not for myself, who is for me?  And when I am for myself, what am I?  And if not now, when?”  The article quoted Torah scholar Jacob Neusner who then noted that Hillel’s wisdom sets up a remarkable tension between selfishness and selflessness because one cannot neglect his own needs, nor can he attend only to his own needs. 

 

This reality creates a moral dilemma of having to keep in the balance the ultimately irreconcilable demands of life and the inescapable requirement to meet those demands every day.  As the article concluded--isn’t it remarkable that still today, each of us face the same dilemma outlined some 2,000 years ago by Hillel? 

 

The Scriptural record of the incredible selfishness of Esau and King Hizkiyahu will be addressed in chapters hereafter.  Obviously, selfishness is one of the terrible sins which all of us must deal with while living in the carnal flesh. 

 

 

The Bottom Line on Greed

 

An acquaintance of this writer once asked the question of when will the duck hunters quit killing the ducks?  The answer is--when all of the ducks are dead and there are no more ducks, the hunters will stop.  Greed, get and acquire completely dominate the entire, current, Christian Israelite culture and civilization. 

 

Is there a limit to human greed and selfishness?  Evidently, not at all!  This present culture and system has been set up and organized by Christianity.  Why is it that blatant and pathetic greed and selfishness are now the orders of the day?  Is it because Christianity abolished YHWH’s laws which restrict and rein in human greed and selfishness? 

 

Would it not be wonderful, grand and marvelous if the American culture and civilization functioned on the basis of The ELOHIM’s laws of love, charity, goodness, loyalty, compassion and fair play?  Yes, so-called humanity needs the Torah! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 37--The Need for Grace

 

 

Understanding 

 

Having just established the wonderful realities of YHWH’s law (Torah)--which are truth, love, goodness, perfection, righteousness and kodesh (often translated as holy), it seems that very few human beings have ever been able to come to a realization of these facts. 

 

Most people either know nothing about YAH’s law (Torah); or at least, among Christians, they suppose that the law (Torah) was imperfect and was something which had to be abolished and done away with. 

 

The prophet Hosea summarized the dilemma of the Israelite tribe of Ephraim (and by inference all other persons at large) when he wrote that they raise up altar after altar and multiply their sins and as YHWH says, if He “were to write out for him (Ephraim) The ten thousand instructions of my (YHWH’s) law, He (Ephraim) would look on them as foreign rules and no concern of his” (Hos 8:11-12--per the “Phillips Translation”). 

 

Consequently, we all are born into a world of ignorance and confusion over what truly constitutes righteousness.  This condition of ignorance, coupled with our basically evil and wicked human natures (of pride, vanity, greed, selfishness, lust, envy, etc), means that all (100%) of us quickly become sinners, once we start maturing beyond the state of infancy. 

 

 

Even Small Children Sin 

 

Yes, even small children commit sin whenever they transgress The ELOHIM’s law (Torah).  There is no such thing as an age of maturity in the Scriptures.  The Book does not establish an age of accountability for sin.  So it matters not at all about how old people are when they sin. 

 

A two year old can be just as guilty of sin (deserving of death) as a ten year old or a twenty year old or a fifty year old.  Sin is sin irrespective of age.  Whenever a person disobeys and violates one of YHWH’s mitzwot, sin results, as has been amply established so far in this presentation (Rom 3:20; 4:15; 5:13; 7:7; I Jo 3:4; 5:17). 

 

According to the Word, sin does at least two things for the sinner.  First, the transgression of even “one” (and it matters not how big or how little that one sin is) of YHWH’s laws immediately invokes the death penalty (Ex 32:33; Lev 22:9; Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:4, 20; Rom 6:23).  Sinners (of one, two, ten, hundreds or millions of sins) must die!  There are no exceptions (except for those sins remitted by a Temple sacrifice). 

 

And secondly, the surfacing of sin acts to cut the sinner off from The MOST HIGH (Isa 59:1-3; I Jo 1:6).  Once sin enters the arena, all of us become cut off from The CREATOR and can never find or achieve reconciliation on our own or because of any supposed merit we may have (again, beyond a legal sacrifice).  In later discussions about prayer, this point will be driven home. 

 

So very quickly in each one’s life, each person becomes a sinner under a death penalty and living in a cut off position from The HIGHEST. 

 

Now, some persons can never begin to grasp it, but the indictment of sin affects all (100%, less YESHUA only) so-called human beings with no exceptions (I Kg 8:46; Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23; 5:12; I Jo 1:8-10).  We all are sinners (to include all little children, however raised--as Christians, Jews or whatever). 

 

Therefore, one of the important laws of YHWH which has "never" been abolished provides that the soul that sins (transgresses the law/Torah--I Jo 3:4) must die, as noted above.  And here, the law is most precise in prescribing death and not life, as heathen sun worship religions have traditionally taught with their false ideas about man’s immortal soul. 

 

Categorically, the Book demands that sinners die and not live on in an inherent immortal state.  Adam sinned and died.  He did not continue to live on with any so-called immortal soul, as taught in Christianity. 

 

There is no such thing in the Scriptures about dead individuals having any automatic sense of being or life apart from a resurrection from the dead.  In the Book, the dead are always dead (at best, “asleep” in their graves awaiting a future resurrection). 

 

 

Human Law and YHWH’s Law Contrasted 

 

YHWH’s laws are similar to human laws in some respects.  This is quite a paradox.  Because while Christians generally hate YHWH’s laws, they have great respect, admiration and support for man-made, human laws (as will be elaborated upon in later chapters). 

 

Most Christians fully believe in their state legislative laws, the US Congressional laws and the US Supreme Court (when it makes judicial law).  It’s just that Christians don’t like YAH’s laws. 

 

Yet, there can also be and are on occasion some profound differences between The ELOHIM’s laws and those of men.  Several of these differences will be described and elaborated upon at some length in subsequent chapters on change. 

 

But for now, it can be stated that the two types of law have some similarities because under each of the two different systems (YHWH’s government versus human government), the punishment of the law (and by law, both systems have prescribed punishments) comes into play and cannot be set aside or abolished when a person is finally judged as violating the law. 

 

Therefore, if a person earns death in the secular society (like for committing premeditated murder, treason and certain other crimes), that penalty must be carried out once the judicial system enters the final judgment (after any appeals that could find something wrong in the court’s application of the law). 

 

In a sense, The ELOHIM’s legal system is essentially the same.  Once a person has been found guilty, then the punishment as prescribed and dictated in the law must be carried out.  There are no exceptions or ways “in the law” around this punishment.  It is fixed and demanded. 

 

Of course, there are some important differences in the punishments between the two systems.  Thus, by YHWH’s law, future, eternal death is always demanded in all cases.  Otherwise, restitution is extremely important in terms of any continued presence and living in the flesh.  Therefore, a thief has to repay four or five times of what he stole (Ex 22:1). 

 

Under The HIGHEST’s laws, the other physical punishments (for certain sins in the flesh) involve either an immediate death, a beating by forty stripes and/or restitution, as appropriate.  There are no prison or jail terms in YHWH’s prescribed punishments (or system).  Alternatively, under man’s laws, men make extensive use of prisons and jails and reserve the death penalty for only a very limited number of crimes. 

 

 

Forgiveness Linked to Ignorance/Innocence 

 

Another important feature of The ELOHIM’s wonderful laws is that certain sins done in ignorance (and this is a most profoundly important aspect of YAH’s law) can be forgiven if the sinner would go to YAH’s Temple and personally render a suitable substitute sacrifice (Lev 4:1-35; 5:14-19; Num 15:22-29; I Tim 1:13).  Yes, the sinner had to personally slay the sacrifice.  It was quite a dramatic and traumatic experience. 

 

The issue of sin offerings is quite complex and there is no intent to try to broach it in any detail herein.  In the generic sense, the offering provision for forgiveness applied only to specific, unintentional and non-capital sins (involving only one sacrifice for one allowable sin and not the numbers of sins which unconverted people are guilty of). 

 

Much of Leviticus 5 is complicated in its definitions and appears to focus on offerings for sins of omission (of positive laws), particularly in ritual cleanness.  Conversely, the Soncino “Jewish Chumash” (p. 614) suggests that Leviticus 4 focuses upon sin offerings for the violation of negative commands. 

 

Deliberate, capital sins required death and could not be expiated (Num 15:30-31).  Some Temple sin offerings and/or sacrifices for forgiveness were and are closely tied to restitution and confession of wrong in non-capital crimes (Num 5:6-8).  This provision may “possibly” open the door for forgiveness slightly beyond just sins of ignorance. 

 

Forgiveness from sacrifices at the Temple for non-capital sins, where foreknowledge was present, seems to be rather obscure and vague in the Torah--perhaps intentionally so since its presence could open the door to outright rebellion and contempt for the law/Torah by anarchists (as is true with rebellious Christianity, mentioned previously, and to be assessed again in later remarks). 

 

In terms of the Temple and its sacrificial system, it must be noted that as long as the Temple stood, animal sacrifices were legal and perfectly viable methods of obtaining forgiveness for certain, “single” (not multiple or multitudes of) sins done in ignorance or while the sinner was in some sense of innocence in the sin act (ignorance and/or innocence must be contrasted with foreknowledge and rebellion, which is in another category.  This is the difference between premeditated murder and unintended manslaughter). 

 

In regards to Shaul and other members of the Apostolic Assembly, this option was periodically followed from the day of Pentecost forward (suggested in Acts 2:46 and elsewhere).  

 

Again, please understand that in an instance of being granted a gift of life through a suitable substitute sacrifice (at the Temple or from YESHUA’s death, to be discussed in later comments) and the forgiveness of sin, the sinner must be in an essential state of ignorance with no foreknowledge, as the law demands. 

 

With foreknowledge and premeditated rebellion against the laws of The SOVEREIGN, there is some real question about whether the sinner ever would be forgiven--certainly during the age of the Apostolic Assembly (Rom 2:13; 6:1-2; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26). 

 

This precise situation may possibly open the door to the so-called unpardonable sin which Christendom has recognized and made mention of from time to time, but without ever really understanding it (Matt 12:31-32; Lu 12:47-48; I Jo 5:16). 

 

It should be observed that the punishment of this serious sin is “age lasting” for the age of time then underway and not necessarily perpetual or eternal.  The age lasting punishment has had or will have an end or termination in terms of time.  This concept was noted earlier and will be expanded upon in future chapters. 

 

 

Sin in the Word 

 

At this juncture, it should be noted that in the Scriptures, some 24 different words are used for sin (20 in the Hebrew OT and four in the Greek NT).  Apparently, these 24 different words express the seriousness or severity of different wrongs (although the presence of any of them possibly produces the ultimate spiritual death sentence). 

 

The most important Hebrew words in the Tanakh are asham, shagah, pesha, maal, awon and chata/chet. 

 

These different words seem to be indiscriminately translated in different ways in various English translations which adds to some of the confusion surrounding them.  But in the main, the word sin is most often attached to chet and its cognates while the words trespass, transgression or iniquity are often used with some of the other words. 

 

Gesenius’ “Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon” (p. 86) makes the case that the Torah differentiates between the trespass offering (ashmah) vis-à-vis the sin offering (chataah).  Sometimes, two different sin concepts are used side by side--like Micah 6:7 where transgression is from pesha while sin is from chet.  Also, in Leviticus 4:2, 22 & 27, sin is from chata and ignorance is from shagah (as if shagah qualifies the chata). 

 

The word asham and its derivatives appear 103 times in the OT (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament”--TWOT, p. 78).  Brown, Driver and Briggs’ “Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament” (p. 79) says that it means “to be or become guilty...in offenses.”  The related trespass offering here is ashmah, mentioned above. 

 

While asham can have several different uses, it appears that much of its focus is on ritual impurities.  For example, it is used in connection with a Nazarite and his vow (Num 6:14--the Nazarite enters a state of sin on a voluntary basis in order to be set apart to YHWH.  The sin arises in his shameful long hair since it is a shame for man to have long hair).  Asham also occurs with a leper and his trespass offering (Lev 14). 

 

Moreover, asham finds a presence in the context of restitution--apparently involving money in the payment for certain wrongs (Num 5:6-7; II Kg 12:16).  The important thing about asham wrong is that it seems to imply a state of innocence or involuntary action which can open the door to a forgiveness at the Temple with the rendition of a suitable sacrifice (Lev 4-6).  Asham is perhaps not as serious as some of the other words. 

 

Shagah (used 19 times in the Tanakh, TWOT, p. 904) is another Hebrew concept which likewise is not as serious as some of the other words for sin since it typically involves minor transgressions done in ignorance.  These sins of ignorance can be forgiven through Temple sacrifices (Num 15:28; Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:15, 18; 22:14). 

 

The OT cities of refuge were made available to a person who killed another unaware or unwittingly (shagah--Josh 20:2-3).  Abemelech’s complaint to Avraham, over Sara, involved shagah (Gen 20:9).  Balaam’s remark to the angel blocking his path was over shagah (Num 22:34).  Shagah is an unintentional mistake in Ecclesiastes 5:5 and extends to a swerve, meander, reel or roll from drunkenness (Prov 20:1; Isa 28:7). 

 

 

Chet 

 

The common Hebrew word for sin is “chet” which appears 459 times in the Tanakh (per “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 14, p. 1587; however, this 459 may include some cognates).  It means “to miss, to fail or not to hit the mark,” as various Hebrew dictionaries reflect. 

 

Chet appears to be substantially more severe than the two previous words (since it can include certain capital crimes--II Chron 25:4).  The root of chet is chata (“Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon,” p. 254). 

 

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament” (p. 277) reports that chata and its derivatives appear some 580 times in the Tanakh.  With this extensive presence, it is one of the primary words in the Hebrew designating wrongdoing.  In the Greek, the comparable word appears to be “hamartia” (although hamartia and its cognate words seem to be used to translate some of the other Hebrew words and concepts on sin). 

 

Chet typically involves offense or improperly offending another.  In certain situations, chet could be forgiven through a sin offering at the Temple (i.e. Lev 4:1 to 6:30); while in others, perhaps not. 

 

The word chet is also used in I Samuel 24:5-12 where David cut off Shaul’s skirt, but was not guilty since he had called out to Shaul.  Shaul acknowledged that David was right and he was wrong (I Sam 26:21).  Finally, chet can surface when a person leads someone else into sin (Ex 23:33). 

 

The concept of chet involves an archer who misses his mark or target (Jud 20:16).  In a sense, the case can be made that the archer is “trying” to hit the mark, but inadvertently misses it because of certain shortcomings--like human frailties and acts arising from man’s inclination for evil (Hebrew yezer ha-ra, to be discussed in the context of carnality and the flesh in later chapters). 

 

 

Pesha 

 

Another important Hebrew word used some 136 times in the Tanakh is “pesha” which seems to be extremely more severe.  The TWOT (p. 741) says that it addresses those who “reject God’s authority.” 

 

The “Aid to Bible Understanding” observes that pesha “carries the idea of transgression... (as well) as that of revolt, which is a turning away from or rejection of the law or authority of another.”  This definition of pesha, mentioning a rejection of the law, clearly sounds like a definition of Christianity. 

 

Obviously, the pesha transgression is a profoundly more serious condition than what one would find with chet, asham or shagah.  In other words, the Christian who rejects The ELOHIM’s law and will not be subject to the law is committing pesha--one of the worse possible transgressions of all. 

 

This revolt and transgression is far more severe than the person who accepts the law (Torah) and makes an effort to hit the mark in obedience, but fails because of ignorance and human passion. Assuredly, pesha is the backbone of Christian theology. 

 

This writer has carefully considered the two words of chet and pesha (which are the commonly used terms for many sins) and it appears probable that the Christian state of rejection and revolt against YAH’s Torah always involve pesha and never chet. 

 

In other words, the person guilty of chet has to be an individual who does accept the authority of the law/Torah and is trying to obey it, but fails because of human frailties.  Pesha concerns the state of rebellion and contempt by a person toward the law (Torah), leading them to reject the Torah outright as being non-authoritative. 

 

 

Maal 

 

Maal is another word which has some presence in the Tanakh (64 times in its noun and verb forms, TWOT, p. 742).  Leviticus 5:15 “may” allow a sacrifice for maal.  But the OT is largely silent or at least questionable in any reference to the use of Temple sacrifices/offerings for maal. 

 

Clearly, maal is a profoundly serious matter (like the man and married woman involved in adultery--Num 5:12-13).  In fact, the TWOT (p. 519-520) gives this definition for maal-- “a conscious act of treachery.”  Brown, Driver and Briggs’ Hebrew lexicon notes that it means “rebel, transgress, revolt.” 

 

The sin of Achan on entering the promise land involved maal (Josh 7:1; 22:20) and Shaul’s great sin which removed his kingship and brought on his death was due to maal (I Chron 10:13; this evil will be assessed in later chapters in the vein that Shaul did not slaughter the Amalek-Edomites, as he was commanded to do). 

 

For collective “maal” sins, YHWH pronounced a judgment of scattering the people from the land (Neh 1:8). 

 

 

Awon 

 

The last word under consideration is awon, another very serious act of transgression.  It is used some 248 times in the Tanakh (TWOT, p. 650). 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 14, p. 1588) says awon means crookedness; while Gesenius (p. 590) notes that its root (awah) means to be perverse, to make crooked, perverts one way.  TWOT (p. 650) goes on to note that awah means “bend, twist, distort.”  For sure, it is the antithesis of the righteousness found in Psalms 119. 

 

TWOT also indicates that in numerous instances, awon is a “collective or quasi-abstract, noun denoting the sum of past deeds against God and man” (Num 14:34; I Sam 25:24; II Sam 22:24; I Kg 17:18; Ezra 9:6; Job 13:26; Isa 1:4; Jer 11:10).  Manifestly, it must often involve outright rebellion against YHWH’s laws.  Surely, this type of rebellion involves an awareness and cognizance of the existence of the Torah. 

 

This writer has checked through usages of awon in the “Englishmen’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance” (p. 910-911) and was unable to find any plain references to the availability of the Temple sacrificial system to grant forgiveness.  Possibly, the reason for the seriousness of awon is because it does involve rebellion against the Torah with full knowledge and understanding of its applicability. 

 

 

Distinguishing Between the Terms 

 

In this sense, awon probably differs from pesha in the context of underlying understanding and awareness of the Torah and its legal status to dictate righteousness.  The person raised in Judaism and being taught and made to understand the role of Torah is probably in a different position than a pagan Christian who was taught and told that the Torah was abolished and done away with. 

 

Both cases (the Christian and the Jew) seem to be similar in the sense of both being in rebellion and contempt toward the Torah.  But the differences surface (in awon for the Jew and pesha for the Christian) in that the Christian carries a measure of innocence because of ignorance and a lack of understanding.  It is possible that no sacrifices could ever be made in the Temple to allow forgiveness of pesha or awon sins. 

 

This reality shows the incredible value of YESHUA’s sacrifice because it seems to cover all of the past wrongs done in both cases.  Obviously, awon is also similar to maal.  It might be that maal focuses upon the single incidents of sin; whereas awon is more concerned with the attitude of the sinner and his overall acts of many sins. 

 

This link between maal and awon allows a connection between pesha and maal.  Pesha apparently can cover single, individual sins or the collective attitude of rebellion.  Clearly, pesha involves the actions of Christians who are in revolt and contempt toward the Torah (although they are largely in a state of ignorance). 

 

Thus, most Christians don’t even bother to try to hit the mark.  Most know nothing about the law (Torah) and don’t want to know.  Since they are in rebellion and not even trying, these transgressors would not normally be guilty of chet, shagah or asham (unless the case can be made that they accept the validity of a particular law, like coveting or bearing false witness; yet, be in disobedience because of ignorance). 

 

The problem in awon, maal and pesha is far more serious than the person who is trying and misses the mark, as in chet, shagah or asham (because of human frailties, ignorance, etc). 

 

The Temple sacrificial system simply did not afford the sinner much of an opportunity to use it in order to gain forgiveness for the accelerating effects of awon, maal or pesha.  One must remember that a sacrifice could only apply to one, single sin and not to multiples from pesha or awon. 

 

 

The Anti-Law Ideas 

 

The concept of the Hebrew pesha seems to relate in some way to the idea of anti-law or lawlessness covered in the NT Greek words “anomos” (Mk 15:28; Lu 22:37; Acts 2:23; I Cor 9:21; II Thes 2:8; I Tim 1:9; II Pet 2:8) and “anomia” (Matt 7:23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:12; Rom 4:7; 6:19; II Cor 6:14; II Thes 2:7; Titus 2:14; Heb 1:9; 8:12; 10:17; I Jo 3:4). 

 

Obviously, in the above citations of anomos and anomia, where the Greek nomos (law) is focusing upon the Torah (which is usually the case), the correct sense is anti-Torah.  Of course, a study of the context in some instances might suggest that the law involved is a man-made law (i.e. I Cor 9:21, where the issue is probably upon the Jewish Oral Law now found in the Talmud, as discussed elsewhere herein). 

 

In most cases of anomos/anomia, the people under discussion are lawless (correctly Torah-less) in that they will not acknowledge and obey the Torah (law) involved.  In the Septuagint, anomia is used to translate very wicked acts of iniquity and wrongdoing (“Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period,” p. 380). 

 

Perhaps Shaul had Christianity, anomos/anomia and pesha sins in mind when he wrote Hebrews 10:28, which appears worded differently in the different translations.  The first part of this text describes the audience--in the sense of anyone who breaks (Goodspeed, “The Word The Bible From 26 Translations,” p. 2495) or disregards (“Complete Jewish Bible,” p. 1504) the Torah. 

 

The Sep 2002 “Yavoh” periodical (p. 2) gives the whole text as “Anyone who sets aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three.”  For sure, these remarks seem to be describing the Christian attitude toward the Torah.  Thus, it is very possible that these words do, in fact, pertain to Christians and their anti-Torah attitude and works (in the vein of pesha). 

 

The basis of the Greek anomos appears to be the Hebrew concept of “rahshag” where the Tanakh idea is one of enormous evil and wickedness--in the vein of transgressing the Torah (Deut 25:1; II Sam 22:22; I Kg 8:47; II Chron 6:37; 20:35; Neh 9:33; Job 10:15; Ps 18:21; 106:6; Dan 9:15; 12:10). 

 

 

The NT

 

Tragically, the NT translators did not do justice to these words.  Too often, anomia is translated as iniquity or unrighteousness.  In this sense, if the student of the Book will restore the anti-Torah sentiment in these verses, a real revelation comes out on the importance of the Torah. 

 

For example, YESHUA said “to depart from Me” you workers of anti-Torah (Matt 7:21-23).  He also proclaimed a judgment of damnation for such persons (Matt 13:41) and upon certain evil Jews who looked good on the outside, but were anti-Torah in their hearts (Matt 23:28).  Shaul (in II Cor 6:14 and Heb 1:9) contrasted this anti-Torah position (as unrighteousness) with righteousness (Torah appreciation and obedience). 

 

The moral situation behind pesha and anomos-anomia conveys a state of anarchy because the sinner conducts his life and carries on as if he was and is an anarchist.  There are any number of YHWH’s laws which can be cited as examples of distinguishing between pesha and chet, shagah or asham. 

 

Since this anti-Torah state of anarchy can be forgiven (Rom 4:7; Titus 2:14; Heb 8:12; 10:17), it is very evident that the state of particularly pesha as found in Christianity can be forgiven upon proper repentance.  Now, if there should be a reversion back to sin and pesha (or maal or awon), there may be some question about any future forgiveness, but evidently not so in the context of the initial call and true repentance.  

 

 

Christians Generally Do As They Please 

 

Take the case of The ELOHIM’s mitzwot dealing with clean and unclean meats (which will be addressed in later chapters herein).  In general, Christians could care less what the Torah says on meats. 

 

They eat whatever they want to eat.  Most have never read those laws.  And many probably don’t even know they exist--nor do they care about their existence.  In this state of total contempt and rebellion toward those laws, the Christian commits pesha whenever he eats pork.  If he eats pork daily, he commits pesha daily. 

 

Conversely, some few believers do accept those food laws and make every effort to obey them.  Despite walking the extra mile and trying hard to eat only clean meats, it is still possible for a person to accidentally and without intention eat some unclean meats--usually from contamination of clean meats. 

 

This can happen in any number of ways.  But one method involves the Christian or other culture’s irresponsible attitude toward YHWH’s law (Torah).  For example, a believer might go into a meat market and order some steaks (ostensibly clean meats).  Maybe, the butcher uses a knife or slicing machine which has some pork fragments or molecules still attached. 

 

Any fraction of a grain of this pork would contaminate the clean beef.  A believer innocently buying this stuff would eat it never realizing that there was some pork contamination.  In this instance, the resulting sin appears to be in the shagah class. 

 

 

Mistakes Versus Rebellion 

 

Manifestly, there is a world of difference between the Christian who eats pork regularly and routinely (daily or almost daily), while he maintains an attitude of contempt and rebellion toward YAH’s laws on clean meats (pesha), and the believer who is trying hard to hit the mark; but inadvertently, accidentally and/or unintentionally eats a speck of pork by mistake (probably shagah). 

 

As briefly mentioned above, premeditated murder is in a far different world than accidental or unintended manslaughter. 

 

There are any number of ways people can commit asham, chet, or shagah, in particular, all the while that they are doing their level best to obey YHWH’s laws totally and completely. 

 

Often, the reason for these inadvertent lapses happens not always because of the carelessness and irresponsible actions of the believer (although this is true in many cases); but rather, they happen because of the existing culture and society which could care less about YAH’s Torah. 

 

Chet seems to also be able to surface when a believer, who does accept and tries to obey all of YAH’s laws, foolishly allows human nature (man’s evil inclination, described elsewhere herein) to take over momentarily.  For example, in a moment of anger and without any real thought, Moshe struck the rock and stole credit for the water from YHWH (to be later discussed).  Possibly, this wrong by Moshe was chet. 

 

The Apostle Kefa three times denied The MESSIAH, apparently in moments of panic and fear and without premeditated thinking and planning.  Again, it is probable that his sins were chet.  It appears that as long as one is in the flesh, the chet sins of the flesh may inadvertently surface, as well as the sins of ignorance (shagah) and ritual impurities (asham). 

 

But these isolated and unintended chet, shagah and asham sins are in a far different category than the person who willfully rejects YHWH’s’ laws and routinely and regularly violates them as an anarchist with contempt and rebellion, as a way of life in his heart and attitude (the Christian in pesha and the Jew and the potential convert to the true faith in the vein of maal and/or awon). 

 

The Christian rejection of the law leads to pesha.  But even in pesha, the Christian is truly ignorant and lacking of understanding of what his contemptible action involves. 

 

Since he is ignorant and lacking in understanding of reality, his transgression (pesha) can one day be forgiven--just as the sins of those who are trying can be forgiven.  Apparently, substantially more knowledge, understanding and guilt are attributable to awon and maal. 

 

 

More on Christian Sin 

 

There is another aspect of the Christian attitude toward sin and wrongdoing.  While much Christian sin is of the pesha variety, based simply upon Christian ignorance of the application of the Torah and their willingness to then roll in rebellion and sin (of the pesha type), there is another huge Christian problem in addressing sin and wrongdoing in the general sense. 

 

Christians usually operate on the premise that if they did not intend any hurt or wrong and that if their “hearts are in the right place” (whatever that is), they then believe that they can do no wrong (but a person’s heart cannot possibly be in the right place if he is in sin).  In other words, if they intend no wrong, then they are not guilty of wrong.  This is virtually too stupid to be commented upon.  But it is the real world out there. 

 

The simple truth is that wrong is wrong and its presence does not depend upon what is in one’s heart, attitude, thinking or intent.  That’s why both premeditated murder and unintended manslaughter are both wrong.  Both are sins.  The difference between the two of  them arises in the definition of the sin.  Both ultimately provide for the death of the sinner. 

 

A liar is a liar.  It doesn’t matter whether the liar intended to lie or simply lied in ignorance and because of bad information (the lying question will be broached more fully in later chapters).  Admittedly, the type of sin surely is different between the two instances.  But both of them constitute sin and invoke the death penalty.   

 

It is precisely because of this reality that little children can and do commit sin.  Usually, for children, Christians take the attitude that they are innocent and are not guilty of sin.  Many of them begin lying, cheating, deceiving, stealing, and indeed, murdering others at very early ages.  True, they bear a measure of ignorance and often a lack of premeditation and intention.  But in all cases, they are sinners just as with adults. 

 

 

Christians Simply Don’t Understand 

 

Frankly, it is absolutely astounding that Christians can do very evil and/or stupid things and carry on in life as if they are not responsible for their actions because they didn’t intend any evil in their hearts.  Too many Christians suppose that if they didn’t intend hurt, then they are innocent and not guilty of hurt/sin.  The truth is that they are guilty and are sinners--both with intent or without intent. 

 

The same thing is true in the secular society.  Man cannot go to court and claim no intent and/or ignorance of the law.  Law violators will be prosecuted whether they knew what they were doing or not.  A speeder along the highway cannot claim ignorance of the speeding laws to avoid punishment. 

 

The same is true in the Torah.  The person violating a mitzwah (commandment) is guilty of sin and must accept the penalty.  He can’t stand up and simply say that he didn’t know, that he didn’t intend hurt or harm on others, or that his heart is in the right place. 

 

So, where does the intent issue or what’s in one’s heart come into play?  In the Torah, the question of forgiveness (in the vein of going to the Temple and rendering a sacrifice) was always contingent upon a state of ignorance and/or innocence (it must have involved an unintended act).  In other words, what was in one’s heart determined whether a sacrifice and forgiveness was possible. 

 

The premeditated murderer, liar and/or sinner (as in the case of maal or awon sins) was in a far different position than the unintended sinner in chet, asham or shagah wrongs.  People in ignorance or without evil intentions could easily gain forgiveness at the Temple with the sacrifice.  But real questions arose over the presence of intent in sin, and whether one would obtain forgiveness while in the flesh. 

 

Moreover, the difference in the different types of sin or wrong is only in severity or seriousness and not necessarily over possible future forgiveness in terms of YESHUA’s sacrifice and the coming resurrection of the sinner for judgment.  YHWH can and will forgive in all cases. 

 

While forgiveness may or may not come in this age, every Adamite will have his day in court to be awakened to understand the nature of his transgression (to be elaborated upon in future chapters on reconciliation and repentance). 

 

The point of these remarks is that Christians need to understand and appreciate that when they do something wrong, it becomes sin.  The fact that they didn’t intend the wrong (in their hearts) doesn’t deny the wrong.  It only offers mitigating circumstances which will more easily allow forgiveness than if they had done the wrong with malice aforethought and intention to do wrong. 

 

 

The Temperament Problem, Revisited 

 

The Prologue mentioned the difficulty which perceiving and feeling people face in the conduct of their lives.  Feelers make decisions based upon how they feel and perceiving types vacillate and are extremely irresponsible, careless and indifferent about closure and having things settled or reacting to established duties and responsibilities (as required for a believer in the context of the Torah). 

 

This personality reality creates a situation where particularly the perceiving person is not going to be attentive and responsible toward YHWH’s Torah, as he should be.  Because of temperament, the perceiver and the feeler to some extent can digress into sin--not so much because of intent and desire to sin; but rather, because simply of being irresponsible about duties, commitments and obligations. 

 

In those cases, where sin arises because of being irresponsible, is it possible to suggest that the sin is a sin of ignorance?  Or could continuous or repetitive irresponsible acts constitute rebellion?  For sure, irresponsibility, carelessness and being inconsiderate of others are all intimately connected to the reality of selfishness and carnality (as will be broached in some detail in subsequent chapters). 

 

The very mention of carnality opens the door to sin.  So there well could be a connection or linkage in these human shortcomings to sin. 

 

This writer does not know the answer here and would not dare try to be dogmatic in defining these practices as sin.  But for sure, all so-called believers need to get interested in YHWH’s Torah and start making some effort to study it and to obey it conscientiously and responsibly. 

 

Perceivers and feelers need to be aware of their shortcomings.  They need to pull their heads out of the sand and start going against their basic natures.  They need to constantly work on their shortcomings and strive hard to act responsibly and on the basis of objective study and truth in terms of the conduct of their lives.  Of course, it goes without saying, but all people need to work on their shortcomings. 

 

 

Ultimate Forgiveness for Salvation 

 

While all of the wrongs done can ultimately be forgiven to afford salvation (at some point in time, either in this present age or in a future age to come), there is an interesting differentiation between the persons practicing the two courses.  Later presentations herein will establish that salvation involves an act of unmerited grace by The SOVEREIGN with no works on the part of saved persons whatsoever. 

 

The individuals spending a lifetime of working hard and trying their best to obey the law (Torah) in its entirety will ultimately receive the same salvation of life as do others receive who have spend their lifetimes in rebellion and contempt over the law/Torah (although even their salvation will only occur after true repentance, when they acknowledge their wrongs for the mitzwot violated). 

 

Thus, salvation will not be granted based upon works of obedience of laws.  But contrariwise, rewards in the future life in the Kingdom will be totally predicated upon works of obedience of YAH’s Torah.  Therefore, the person working hard to obey with only a few minor chet sins will receive more in the context of rewards than the person who spends a lifetime of pesha rebellion. 

 

These issues on salvation will be further assessed in future chapters.  However, for now, it must be acknowledged that repentance and forgiveness seem possible for all types of sin (at some point in time).  The difference is not over future salvation, but only over future rewards and blessings in the Kingdom. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 38--Grace and the Torah

 

 

Hence, the Pardon 

 

The former chapters developed the reality that we all quickly become sinners--in a lost, cut-off profile from The CREATOR.  While there are differences in the degree of seriousness in sin and Scriptural wrongs, they all seem ultimately forgivable at some point in time.  This condition opens the door to the concept of a pardon. 

 

Now, in terms of human laws (as well as Scriptural laws), there is a similar type of forgiveness (provision of a pardon).  Thus, Governor or President “Slick” Clinton can come along and pardon a number of persons associated with his criminal life from having to serve various prison terms.  Some years ago, President Ford pardoned former President Nixon of all alleged wrongs. 

 

Certainly, this pardoning procedure can extend to cases where an individual is under a human death sentence.  Wherefore, the person who has earned death (because of violating certain human laws) can be freed and restored to society by the act of a pardon from the governing authority. 

 

In no case does a pardon abolish, change or terminate the various laws involved.  The pardon is a legal provision of forgiveness in both human laws and YAH’s law.  Whenever the pardon is rendered, there are no changes in the violated laws which necessitated the pardon.  This is the precise situation in human law, and it’s the same with YHWH’s law (the Torah). 

 

 

No Change With the Pardon 

 

This pardon provision was never an abolishment or change of any of YHWH’s law (Torah).  The Torah stands forever, and it cannot be changed, terminated or abolished.  Manifestly, all that the Scriptural pardon represented was a type of a situation whereby the sinner could be forgiven completely and be restored and/or placed into fellowship with The ETERNAL (thus, technically, a nullification of the law’s punishment). 

 

Tragically, the blood of sheep and goats (in the Temple sacrificial system) was always inadequate and lacking in terms of being able to deal with the sinning nature of Adam and the untold multitude of sins which Adam’s descendants have been guilty of over their lives (Ezek 18:23; Heb 10:4-8). 

 

So, from the beginning of the creation, the SUPREME had a provision in His law (Torah) of a coming better sacrifice which could deal with these issues.  Thus, the law provided that The CREATOR, Himself (with a life worth more than the totality of all of the creation), could (would and did) come down to earth and offer His life and blood to pay for the sins (law violations) of all Adamites (Heb 9:14; 10:12; Rev 5:9). 

 

The Apostle Shaul wrote about this very situation in his epistle to the Romans.  He correctly observed that there was a law in effect dealing with sin and death--the classic death penalty law for sin (Rom 8:2).  But he contrasted that law of sin and death with the law of the Spirit of life in YESHUA--in effect, the entrance of the pardon (Rom 8:1-4). 

 

 

One Difference 

 

If there is one difference between the use of the pardon by man or YHWH, it lies in the audience chosen for the pardon.  Slick Clinton typifies the hypocrisy of man’s decision to pardon convicted criminals.  Over the years, Slick has pardoned a number of people (especially in January 2001). 

 

But his pardons were primarily directed at his friends and colleagues, who had gone to jail for crimes--many of which he was involved in personally and should have been prosecuted, per the law.  However, thanks to some of these friends and fellow criminals (who took the blame/fall and went to jail), Slick escaped punishment (this was one of Slick’s usual MOs). 

 

He routinely expected friends and colleagues to go to jail for him, if there were any flare-ups or problems over the criminal acts that they were jointly participating in.  Naturally, he chose to later pardon some of these people, who were in jail on his behalf (like Susan McDougal). 

 

Clinton rarely used the provision to pardon people who had no links to him (in other words, Slick was not interested in pardoning the average John Doe criminal on the street, who had no ties to him). 

 

Hence, Clinton freely used the pardon to pardon fellow Democrats--who had gone to jail for corruption and dishonesty (for example--Dan Rostenkowski, a former US Congressman from Chicago, IL).  Slick also was free about using the pardon to forgive and release his relatives (like his brother Roger Clinton) and his friends and associates in the drug running business (i.e. Dan Lasiter). 

 

Of course, his colleagues and friends involved with him in various grimy business operations were pardoned--as in Whitewater (like Susan McDougal, noted above, and others) and members of his own Administration (who had been accused, indicted or convicted of criminal activities) were likewise pardoned (like former CIA Director John Deutch, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and others). 

 

 

More on Slick’s Pardons 

 

President Slick similarly used the pardon in the 2000 election campaign to pardon and release certain prisoners who could help him or Hillary politically--like the several Puerto Rican murderers and terrorists in New York (as elsewhere discussed herein).  He also pardoned four Hasidic Jews in jail for a $40 million fraud if their Hasidic community in New York would deliver the vote for Hillary in 2000 (which they did). 

 

On his last full day in office on January 19, 2001, Slick ended up by pardoning a host of 140 friends, colleagues, associates and money donors who he had had ties with (the total number of January 2001 pardons was much higher at around 190). 

 

In terms of people with no connections or links to Slick (like the usual criminal in jail), the prospects of a pardon were essentially out.  To pardon them, there was no benefit to Slick.  Therefore, the common criminal and certainly politically incorrect people could expect to serve their full terms.  Slick was only interested in pardoning friends and people with political or money connections to him or the Democrats. 

 

Some other human governors have done the same thing in dispensing pardons and forgiveness on the basis of discrimination, favoritism, money, political connections and friendship.  Conversely, YHWH pardons people generally without reference to any favoritism or their connections or works.  YHWH pardons on the basis of impartiality and fairness and indiscriminately without regard to factors of friendship or linkage.  

 

 

Slick and Bribes 

 

One of the classic illustrations of bribery (which motivated a Congressional inquiry) was Slick’s pardon of racketeer, swindler, tax evader, con man and billionaire Marc Rich (whose very attractive, former wife Denise made some 19 private visits to Clinton in the oval office and gave the Democrats over $1 million in campaign contributions and the Clintons and the Clinton Library evidently another $1 million in expensive furniture, gifts and money). 

 

It is unclear exactly what all Denise and Slick did in the privacy of his office for those numerous visits.  But with Clinton’s phenomenal appetite for perverted sex, the feeling among most people has been that poor Denise was not there 19 times to just bring the bags of money in to pay off and bribe Slick to pardon her ex-husband Marc.  The best guess is that the sex predator Slick got both sex (sodomy) and money from Denise. 

 

There remains some question about what all Denise got in the deal (besides possibly getting some skinned knee caps and semen soiled dresses in Clinton’s office)? 

 

Since she and her colleagues have pleaded the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (to avoid testifying), and since Marc refuses to come back to the US and testify, we may never know exactly what all Denise gave to Slick or got from Marc.  But surely, billionaire, ex-husband Marc must have given her a bag of money or some very expensive gifts for her work--as well as covering the bribes paid to Slick. 

 

Rich had never served a day in jail and was hiding out from US authorities at a plush, fancy chateau in a haven in Switzerland.  One of his several alleged crimes was tax evasion of $150 million.  He was a fugitive from US justice, having fled the United States in 1983.  Another complication was the question about Rich’s citizenship. 

 

He was reportedly a Belgium native and gained US residence and citizenship.  But upon fleeing the US, he renounced his US citizenship and soon became a citizen of Spain.  As he was Jewish, he also obtained dual citizenship with Israel (Mar 12, 2001, “Spotlight,” p. 2).  So Rich now has Spanish and Israeli citizenships--but not US citizenship.  Yet, Slick pardoned him--the alien that he is in terms of the US. 

 

 

Rich Tried to Make A Deal 

 

Apparently, in the 1980s, Rich’s lawyers contacted the Justice Department and tried to work out a deal, but nothing came of those efforts. 

 

Again, in the summer of 1991, Rich’s lawyers surfaced once more in the US and contacted the New York prosecutors and the US Attorney in Baltimore, MD in a secret contact with an offer to squeal on Marc’s fellow crook, Tom J. Billman--who was wanted in the US for bilking $25 million from a Maryland Savings & Loan (Mar 12, 2001, “UN News & World Report,” p. 32). 

 

The offer was simple.  Rich was prepared to double cross and squeal on his alleged friend and fellow fugitive Billman and tell US authorities where Billman was hiding out if a deal could be worked out whereby Marc would not have to serve any jail time on the charges against him (the efforts of a swindler like Rich to double cross an alleged friend like Billman seem par for the course from a man like Rich). 

 

Marc, the non-resident foreigner, beat all of the charges and convictions when Slick pardoned him in January 2001.  Again, he never served a day in jail.  What would happen to the average John Doe who stole a dollar or beat the tax people out of peanuts?  He would go to jail and stay there.  For most Americans in jail, there would be no pardons! 

 

 

Michael Savage 

 

On the “Savage Nation” radio talk show program of Feb 19, 2001, Michael Savage discussed the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich and asked callers if Clinton could have or should have a different name over his acceptance of illegal bribes and payoffs (like Hollywood actress Jane Fonda was nicknamed “Hanoi Jane” during the Vietnam war days when she came out in support of the North Vietnam Communists).  

 

One caller, on the Savage program, suggested that Bill Clinton should be renamed “Dollar Bill,” since many (or most) of Clinton’s executive actions involved illegal pay-offs and bribes to him in some manner.  Certainly, Slick used his executive pardon powers to collect money from Rich and assuredly others as well. 

 

On February 27, 2001, Michael Savage provided another assessment of the Slick Clinton pardons.  Again, the Marc Rich pardon for very obvious bribes became the focus of the talk show.  Most callers had enormous condemnations for Slick’s wretched action in taking bribes to pardon people. 

 

However, one woman caller said it was not a bribe, but merely a contribution which Marc and Denise were free to make however they wanted to.  After all, it was their money.  So, who was Savage to question the contributions which Rich made to the Clintons and the Democrat party.  Michael Savage raised a question about the IQ level of this woman caller.  Maybe, her IQ was only at one or two digits. 

 

With Clinton, everything in the United States was for sale.  As pointed out elsewhere herein, Bill sold the Lincoln bedroom in the White House for money, burial plots in Arlington Cemetery for money, nuclear secrets to China for money and on and on.  It was only natural that he would put his pardon powers on the block for money.  Today, Slick is a multi-millionaire. 

 

 

The Scriptural Fall-Out 

 

In his Feb 27th discussion, Michael Savage noted that a number of prominent Jews had written letters to Clinton to ask him to pardon Rich--their supposed fellow Jew.  Savage pointed out that in the Torah readings in the synagogues for the past week, the focus was upon Exodus 23:8--which condemned the taking of a bribe. 

 

This same prohibition is also at Deuteronomy 16:19 (the KJV translates the Hebrew in both Ex 23:8 and Deut 16:19 as gift, but almost all other translations give it correctly as bribe).  Actually, the Tanakh has a host of other Scriptures along the same line (I Sam 8:3; 12:3; Ps 26:10; Isa 33:15; Amos 5:12).  The Word is clear that the payment of a bribe blinds eyes and perverts justice and righteousness. 

 

Michael Savage then wisely raised the question of hypocrisy about these Jews, who go to synagogues and listen to the readings of the Torah condemning the taking of a bribe and then go on to write Clinton requesting a pardon for a billionaire swindler, crook and con man.  Savage posed the question--is it possible that Rich spread some of his money around to these Jewish leaders in addition to Clinton? 

 

In Savage’s talk with the woman caller, outlined above, Mike pointed Exodus 23:8 out to her and asked if it was right to take a bribe.  The ignorant woman never addressed the Scriptural condemnations on taking bribes.  Instead, she launched into her stupid tirade about the payments merely being contributions to Clinton and not bribes. 

 

 

More Bribes 

 

One more interesting Slick pardon was another rich swindler and con man named Glenn Braswell, who was convicted in 1983 and spent seven months in jail then and has been under investigation for a new series of fraud and tax evasion complaints.  At first, it was unclear what connection this crook had with Slick.  But he had one. 

 

The revelation on Glenn happened on February 21, 2001, when news reports said that Braswell and a convicted drug dealer (named Carlos Vignali) had paid Hillary Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodham some $400,000 to get Braswell a pardon and Carlos a commutation of sentence.  Accordingly, Slick accommodated both of them (for the money paid to Hugh Rodham--which probably was shared with Slick). 

 

In addition to pardoning his druggy brother Roger Clinton, as noted above, evidence surfaced in June 2001 that brother Roger had actually set up a business of collecting fees from various persons for pardons or bribes for government benefits (Jun 25, 2001, “Newsweek,” p. 6). 

 

Roger allegedly collected $235,000 and was going to collect another $165,000 to get a pardon for Garland Lincecum (who was convicted in 1998 for investment fraud) and diplomatic passports for Richard Cayce.  Both of these deals allegedly fell through the crack before becoming reality. 

 

In the context of these pardons, just noted, and many of the others, the reality seems clear that the payment of money (in the form of a bribe or payoff) to Bill Clinton, his brother Roger, his wife Hillary, his brother-in-law Hugh and/or his Democrat colleagues could buy a pardon or a commutation of sentence.  This is one of the tragedies in the exercise of the pardon provision by human governors and sovereigns. 

 

As outlined elsewhere herein, Bill Clinton quickly earned the nickname “Slick,” back in his Arkansas days--because he was and is so incredibly slick and slimy in his maneuvers and ability to survive and withstand enormous scandal and corruption charges, which would bring the typical politician down (but not Slick Willy).  Like all of his other scandals, Slick survived this pardon scandal as well. 

 

 

Rome and Pardons 

 

The historic Roman Catholic Church used to use a similar program of bribes and pay-offs.  This Catholic process became popular in the Middle Ages in Europe where it was called the granting of indulgences.  “The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 407) defines the indulgence as a “pardon of temporal punishment due for sin.” 

 

The essence of the indulgence procedure was that Catholic bishops, priests and leaders would travel around the country and go from village to village and sell these indulgences for money.  In other words, good Catholics could pay money to the traveling Catholic salesman and receive the indulgence/pardon in exchange.  

 

This money scam eventually caused quite an uproar in portions of Europe.  Perhaps John Huss was the first Catholic leader to speak out and oppose the process (as will be covered in a later chapter).  Martin Luther was another person who opposed this system.  Though Luther was never caught and murdered by Catholic authorities, most persons who opposed indulgences were killed by the church (like John Huss).  

 

For the collective benefit of Adamites, the obtaining of a pardon from YHWH is not contingent upon the payment of money or any other type of human works.  It is a totally different process than what human leaders dream up and conceive (as in the case of Bill Clinton and the Roman Catholic Church). 

 

 

Yes, Unmerited Grace 

 

Thus, in the application of this restitution of the pardon provision, and the Adam kind’s acceptance of it, The ELOHIM graciously forgives and pardons the sinner and accepts His Own shed blood in payment for “all” (100%) past (not future) sins (Matt 18:27).  In the New Testament, this is called “grace.” 

 

Since grace is categorically unearned, undeserved and unmerited, it represents a free “gift” of life from The CREATOR.  Therefore, The MOST HIGH’s application and use of the pardon is based entirely upon unmerited grace and not upon political connections and payoffs and bribes to friends who were caught in criminal activities. 

 

Now, when the sinner becomes pardoned for past sins, does this act by YAH grant him or her an automatic license to go out and sin again (in the future) and earn the death penalty once more? 

 

Shaul focused on this dilemma in Romans 6.  He asked--shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound?  The answer is no, no, no (Rom 6:1-2)!  Again, he asked--shall we sin (violate the law again) because we are not under the law (of the death penalty) but under grace (the pardon)?  The answer is no, no, no (Rom 6:15)!  Thus, it’s just like a human pardon of a criminal. 

 

The pardoned criminal does not have the right to go back in society and commit another crime simply because he was pardoned for an earlier crime.  An executive pardon is not a license, privilege or grant for the pardoned person to go back in society and violate the law again. 

 

 

Pardoned People Must Still Obey 

 

Consequently, when a person is forgiven by YHWH, he/she must begin to obey YHWH’s laws and quite sinning.  Sin (transgression of YHWH’s law) must end.

 

Certainly, a forgiven (pardoned) person who returns to sin could be in a very precarious position, as just mentioned above (Rom 2:13; 6:1-23; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26).  So once a person becomes a sinner and earns death (not life as an immortal soul), then the only possibility of obtaining life is through a gift of life (via a pardon) from The LIFEGIVER--either here in the flesh, or in a resurrection from the dead. 

 

So, in time, this good, righteous and just law demanding the death of the sinner was nullified and made ineffective because of the sacrificial death of The MESSIAH as a substitute in certain situations (which usually or always involve cases of ignorance, as stated in the Word and as covered above). 

 

Importantly, this whole process was made possible in the law (Torah) and not because of any failures or short comings of the Torah, as will be seen in later chapters in connection with the issue of change.  For sure, there was nothing wrong with YHWH’s laws of morality and righteousness which caused the law violations to surface. 

 

Yes, the problem all along has been with the evil and wicked human beings who violate The ELOHIM’s laws.  Since we all are born in carnal flesh, there was little hope for us because we all quickly violate YHWH’s laws of righteousness and good.  We become sinners (except for YESHUA, Who was and has been an only exception). 

 

 

Death Penalty Law Suspended--Not Abolished 

 

Consequently, it was the law itself which authorized the setting aside of the legal death penalty for sin.  Of course, it was this single, death penalty law which was effectively rendered powerless in The ANOINTED ONE.  This fact was well known and commented upon by Shaul and various others from time to time in the NT (and hopelessly, this has caused confusion among Christians who do not understand it). 

 

It must be recognized here that the death penalty facing man has not been abolished from The HIGHEST's law, per se.  No!  This law still stands and still demands the death of the sinner.  All that the atoning sacrifice of The MESSIAH means is that the death penalty law can be suspended and not carried out in certain specific circumstances.  Again, the involved laws themselves were not destroyed at all. 

 

Tragically, this nullification of the death penalty, as expressly provided for in the law, has been taken by misinformed Christians to be the termination and destruction of "all" Old Testament law, to include those defining sin and morality (except the Old Testament tithing laws; which, for a very obvious reason, were never completely abolished by Churchianity). 

 

 

John 1:17 

 

John 1:17 is one of the texts used by Christians to oppose the Torah.  In the KJV, it seems to read “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came” by YESHUA.  Christians take it that the Torah was done away with and replaced with grace and truth.  Of course, this reasoning is totally wrong. 

 

As noted in the Apr-Jun 2003 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 41A), the “but” in that text has been supplied by the translators.  It is not in the Greek or original Hebrew texts (the “Diaglott” correctly gives the text without the but).  Obviously, the two phrases are totally harmonious and consistent.  Categorically, YESHUA did not give grace and truth to replace the Torah.  He gave grace and truth to supplement and magnify the Torah. 

 

 

The Essenes 

 

A previous chapter discussed the Essenes which some believe constituted the Qumran community, the remains of which have been discovered in the 20th century, along with a host of ancient scrolls from nearby caves in the Judean wilderness. 

 

Later chapters herein will focus on some of the theological beliefs of these people and especially in the context of how their doctrines compared with the New Testament Apostolic Assembly, and how they seem to stack up with what one might expect from the very elect persons here in the age end. 

 

One of the important doctrines held by these ancient Jews was the issue of grace--specifically unmerited grace.  Most scholars and students of the Word are aware acutely of the fact that the Essenes were extremely separated and ascetic--giving up many of the qualities of life that even the rest of the Jewish population took for granted in the first century CE. 

 

Moreover, those Essenes were extremely obedient of the Torah as a way of life.  Couple obedience of YHWH’s laws with the numerous rules and standards which the sect imposed on adherents and it is manifest that being an Essene required quite a sacrifice (although they did not offer sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem).  For most of them, life was a tremendous trial--every day. 

 

But in this trying environment, the Qumran sect had an interesting slant on grace which precisely dovetails with what was to be later taught in the Apostolic Assembly.  The gist of their position correctly summarizes the whole problem that the Adam kind has faced for the last 6,000 years. 

 

Thus, the Essenes’ Thanksgiving Scroll indicates that the flesh, the unredeemed human nature (to be described in later chapters), is the sphere of sinfulness and that the elect can be saved only by the undeserved grace of The ELOHIM (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 483). 

 

 

The Targums 

 

The previously discussed J. W. Etheridge’s translation of “The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee” p. 11) notes for Genesis 3 that before creating the world, YHWH created the Law, and prepared Eden for the good and Gehenna for the wicked. 

 

Etheridge also noted that the Talmudic treatise Pesachim affirms that “seven things existed before the creation of the world:  the law (correctly the Torah), hell (correctly the common grave), paradise, repentance, the throne of glory, the temple, and the name of the Messiah” (ibid, p. 11). 

 

 

David on the Law 

 

Certainly, David knew something about YHWH’s law.  Accordingly, the best summaries of all on the law seem to have been penned by him some 3,000 years ago in several remarks he wrote in the Psalms.  In the first place, he positively declared that The MOST HIGH’s law was perfect, as noted earlier (Ps 19:7). 

 

Later, in one statement, he twice affirmed that he loved YHWH’s commandments (yes, all 613 of them, as found in the Torah--Ps 119:47-48).  In fact, he said he loved YAH’s commandments more than gold (Ps 119:127).  Going on, he emphatically added “Oh how I love thy law!  It is my meditation all the day” (Ps 119:97). 

 

Elsewhere, he went on to say “I hate vain thoughts but thy law I love” (Ps 119:113).  Obviously, David comprehended things about the law which Christians simply do not understand. 

 

Any person opposed to The ELOHIM’s law should spend a little time and read the Psalms--especially Psalms 119.  The question must ultimately arise as to how is it possible for a Christian to read the Psalms and then argue that the law was bad or was terminated for whatever reason? 

 

Yet, Christians do this regularly in their great state of ignorance.  Question--in today’s world, how many Christians would dare stand up and declare their love for YHWH’s law?  Conversely, how many Christians will stand up and say how bad the law is and how much it should be ignored because it ended. 

 

 

Confusion Over the Torah in the Greek OT and NT 

 

As noted earlier, one of the great difficulties in trying to use the Greek OT and NT Scriptures (to include their translations into English and other languages) is that the Hebrew word Torah is translated (into the Greek nomos or English law), rather than transliterated, as should be done. 

 

This causes confusion because words like nomos or law can refer to man-made laws, as well as those emanating from a higher authority.  For example, in ancient Greek thought and the Hellenistic world, the religious sense of nomos was that it represented the divine laws of the Greek sun god Zeus and the other polytheistic Greek gods (“Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” v. iv, p. 1023-1036).

 

These religious laws came to dominate the entire Greek culture and civilization and were both secular and religious for all purposes.   

 

The enormous problems with the Greek religion of Zeus will be assessed in future chapters.  Suffice to say, the early linkage of the Greek concept of nomos to Zeus is sufficient to make one question its uses for Torah (which more correctly should be transliterated). 

 

By the 5th century BCE, the Greeks discovered that there were other laws in existence (man-made and “divine”), besides the laws of the Greek gods.  Thus, nomos came to be a generic term for law in general (which was the prevailing attitude when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated to Greek).  Manifestly, this definition is far afield from the meaning of the Hebrew Torah. 

 

As discussed previously, the essence of Torah is the instructions, directions and teachings (or laws) found in the five books of Moshe, Genesis through Deuteronomy, issued to the people of Yisrael in the sense that a parent (The EL as Ha AV, Hebrew for The Father) would instruct, teach, train and guide His children.  

 

Thus, every word, phrase, thought and idea of the Torah is relevant and important--for learning. 

 

 

A Bad Translation 

 

Because of the tragedy in translating the Hebrew Torah into the Greek nomos or the English law, Christian users of the Hebrew OT and the apparent Hebrew NT often fail to grasp the real meaning of particular texts which refer to the Torah (YHWH’s instructions, directions and teachings contained in the first five books of the Scriptures, as outlined previously and above). 

 

Consequently, when David said that he loved YHWH’s laws in the KJV translation of the Psalms (Ps 119:97, 113), discussed above, he really was declaring that he loved YHWH’s teachings, instructions, directions and words (laws, if desired) contained in the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy. 

 

In the NT, Shaul affirmed that the Torah was kodesh (holy in the KJV), just and good (Rom 7:12; I Tim 1:8).  As discussed in former comments, Shaul also said that he delighted in the Torah (Rom 7:22), and that he served (obeyed) the Torah (Rom 7:25).  When these clarifications are recognized, they add a new dimension to the profound importance of the books of Moshe--Genesis through Deuteronomy.  

 

 

Anti-Torah 

 

Comments in the preceding chapter focused upon the anti-law ideas reflected in the Greek words of anomos and anomia.  It isn’t that the NT uses of these words focus upon anti-law in the generic sense or anti-law in the vein of human laws (after all, humans love their laws) or in the religious context of the edicts of Zeus and his sun god counterparts. 

 

The Greek speaking people that used anomos and anomia certainly had none of these issues in mind.  No!  The NT words of anomos and anomia seem to specifically address YHWH’s Torah.  So, in the context of the lawlessness and anarchy (which are so profoundly prevalent in generic Christianity), the issue is essentially one of anti-Torah.   And this is a sad but true assertion. 

 

Christians really ignore, hate and oppose the Torah--above all other writings in existence.  They may claim they respect it, as they carry it around (in their “Bibles”) for show purposes, but their hearts are far afield from its contents.  A subsequent chapter will assess this anti-Torah feeling which actually was a part and parcel of the Greek sun worship religion and is now found in Christendom. 

 

In short, the Old Testament and "all" of its laws do stand forever and cannot be abrogated by any pagan religion which has been built on the false premise that The CREATOR's laws were done away with because of hoped for grace.  And it is those laws which provide the legal basis for not only the Good News message; but indeed, the whole New Testament. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 39--Examples in the Torah

 

 

More Than Commandments 

 

The previous chapters have discussed the fact that the Torah contains some 613 commandments or laws which are to be obeyed on the sin level by believers.  This presentation reflects the basic law of YHWH which defines sin and righteousness--as pointed out in the New Testament, as well as herein, and from among numerous other writers and students of the Book. 

 

While it is easy enough for any person to study the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) and identify, catalogue and list these express 613 commandments--since they are stated in the vein of “thou shall do” (positive commandments) or “thou shall not do (negative commandments), there is still more to it than simply a listing of commandments. 

 

Actually, there is, in fact, a subtle, obscure feature about the Torah that even many dedicated and sincere Orthodox, religious, observant Jews fail to ascertain and note.  It surfaces when one looks at the correct definition or interpretation of the Hebrew word “Torah.” 

 

The Torah not only provides for, lists and identifies the 613 express commandments (the mitzwot), but the Torah presents the instructions and teachings of truth and righteousness from The MOST HIGH for His people.  Yes, all of its words are there for believers to come to know, accept, follow and obey as instructions and teachings. 

 

Everything in it has been chosen by The MOST HIGH for the edification and growth in righteousness of the followers of YHWH.  The words and teachings are no accident. 

 

 

Importance of the Words

 

As mentioned throughout this publication, if The HIGHEST had some words or directions only for the people cited in the Scriptures, there has to be a question on why those words were placed in the Scriptures and why so many persons have sacrificed so much to perpetuate those words over the centuries to be read, studied and obeyed by so-called believers. 

 

The truth seems clear enough that if The ELOHIM only had some advice and instructions for Avraham or Yakov Yisrael, there would have been no need for those limited words to be made available to all of Avraham and Yakov’s descendants over the next 4,000 years.  Obviously, those instructions, directions, etc were more extensive than just something to and for Avraham and/or Yakov Yisrael. 

 

The fact that modern people today have those instructions, words and pieces of advice to Avraham, Yitzhak and Yakov only goes to say that those presentations are equally applicable to each and every person who claims to be a follower of The MOST HIGH YHWH. 

 

What this boils down to is that the instructions, directions, laws, pieces of advice, criticisms, etc are all in the Book precisely to benefit all persons who have read and studied those words.  They are there for a purpose.  And that purpose is not just to fill up space. 

 

There are literally thousands of illustrations which powerfully prove and establish this point.  But a few will be shared now to illustrate how expansive and far reaching that the Scriptures are, in fact. 

 

 

The Pre-Flood People

 

The Book of Genesis (chapter 6) tells the story of how Adamic men became so corrupt, vile and defiled that YHWH had to intervene and stop short the early pre-flood generation. 

 

Genesis 6 details how this tragedy came about when the groundwork was laid that the sons of The EHOHIM saw the daughters of Adam and that they were fair.  Accordingly, these sons of The ELOHIM took these women as wives.  Throughout the Book, the Word communicates that they left their first estates, states and/or positions of being. 

 

Importantly, the New Testament makes note of this pre-flood situation and its repeat in the coming age end.  Matthew 24:37-38 and Luke 17:26-27 cite this early sin and its coming repetition. 

 

The very fact that these two NT writings remembers this event and applies it in a prophetic vein to the age end means that the reason which made the Genesis story relevant is because it was something which would be repeated on earth in the future to necessitate another intervention by YHWH in the course of world history. 

 

Yes, the Old Testament book of Genesis not only contained instructions and directions, but it was a prophetic book written by the prophet Moshe. 

 

The HIGHEST YHWH took note of the great wickedness among men over the earth in Genesis 6 (to certainly include the actions of the sons of The ELOHIM in taking of the women for wives, coupled with their production of children and offspring).  Thereupon, He decided to destroy those people and their evil civilization. 

 

The Word then tells us that Noah was a righteous man who was perfect in his generations (Gen 6:9).  Because of this described condition of Noah, The Great ELOHIM elected to save him and his family from the coming destruction (which turned out to be a massive flood). 

 

In terms of this prevailing sin and wickedness, the narrative is sufficient to ascertain precisely what the trouble was with those people at that time. 

 

Obviously, the first thing that stands out in this report is that something was wrong with those marriages.  Of course, YHWH Himself ordained marriage.  So the problem could not be the issue of marriage, per se.  There has to be something else involved which would precipitate the gross wickedness present among those people. 

 

Later chapters hereafter will describe in detail the problem with those marriages.  Suffice to say, it involved illegal miscegenation which is conclusively proven in the Word and particularly so when The ELOHIM communicated that Noah was perfect in his genealogy. 

 

This little remark in Genesis 6:9 is powerful and tells a far reaching story.  It tells a story about Noah being perfect in his racial ancestry--meaning that there was no racial miscegenation in his ancestry. 

 

Actually, there are other Scriptures which are very precise and unmistakable that racial miscegenation is wrong and is sin (as will be covered hereafter).  But the point of this is that the problem in Genesis 6 precisely involved this type of evil.  And as demonstrated in the NT, it would find a resurgence and repeat in the eventual age end. 

 

Yes, there is nothing new under the sun as Solomon (Sholomo in the Hebrew) would later write in the book of Ecclesiastes.  History does repeat itself.  YHWH, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, knew that Adam man would repeat that very sin. 

 

Accordingly, it was crucially important to describe and detail that sin as a point of instruction so that Adam man could be forewarned of what the consequences would be when Adam man resumed the sin of miscegenation (as would happen in the prophetic age end). 

 

Not only was the presentation prophetic, as it involved prophecy, but it was certainly also instructive in the context of saying-- “Don’t do it.”  It was prophetic because Adam man would proceed to do it; despite being told to not do it.  Of course, we all are pathetically foolish when we strike out on our own to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil instead of eating from the tree of life (the Torah). 

 

 

Rebekah and her Veil

 

The book of Genesis also tells the story of how Avraham was a thoughtful and concerned father who did not want his son Yitzhak to marry one of the local Canaanite women (Gen 24:3, 37).  Accordingly, he sent his eldest trusted servant to Mesopotamia to obtain a wife for Yitzhak from among Avraham’s racial people. 

 

The servant came into contact with Avraham’s relatives and made arrangement for Rebekah to come with him back to Canaan land to become the wife of Yitzhak.  On returning to Canaan, Yitzhak approached the camel caravan with Rebekah.  Rebekah alighted from her camel and covered herself with her veil (Gen 24:64-66). 

 

These little instructions and directions are pregnant with enormous and far reaching teachings.  Because Christians generally either never read the Old Testament; or alternatively, they simply ignore the words of the OT if they do read them, they miss the importance of these instructions and teachings. 

 

First, notice the question of marriage.  Please note that Yitzhak did not select his wife.  But rather, his father Avraham made the decision on who Yitzhak would marry.  Avraham made the marriage decision, not on the basis of fleshly lust (as could have been present in Yitzhak to influence his choice); but on the basis of what was best from the standpoint of the marriage and the future of Yitzhak’s children. 

 

Avraham chose for his son Yitzhak to be married to a woman of the same racial stock as Yitzhak.  To bring this marriage into play, Avraham had to go to great trouble and indeed expense to send his most trusted servant to Mesopotamia to get a bride for Yitzhak. 

 

Next, in this narrative, please take note that when Yitzhak approached his coming  bride, she thoughtfully covered herself with her veil.  This means not only that she had a veil, but also that she used it on appropriate occasions.  Thus, should the women descendants of Rebekah take note of what their racial ancestor Rebekah did as a work of righteousness? 

 

The point of these teachings on this event from the life of Avraham is that the little intricacies and occurrences are instructions and teachings for all of us who read and use the Tanakh to guide us into the correct way of living. 

 

Should a true Adamic believer in YHWH marry a Canaanite woman?  No way, Jose!  Should a true Adamic believer marry a person of his same racial stock?  Absolutely yes.  Should a woman Adamic follower of YHWH veil herself in front of other unknown males?  Absolutely yes.  Of course, these words are all instructions and teachings in righteousness for our  benefit. 

 

 

Aaron and His Beard

 

The situation of YESHUA and His beard is covered in some detail in former chapters.  And elsewhere herein, the Scriptural evidence of the need for men to have and use beards will be appropriately covered.  But there is one more point on this theme which is most important here in this discussion for believing males. 

 

Though not in the Torah, per se, the Psalms have a record of something about the first High Priest of Yisrael, Aaron, the brother of Moshe.  Psalms 133:2 reflects that Aaron not only had a beard, but it was a very long beard that actually ran down his face to his clothes. 

 

Now, the fact that both YESHUA and the first High Priest of Yisrael had beards, and a real long one in the case of Aaron, is important. 

 

Question, does that fact have anything to do with you and me?  Well, of course, the answer is yes.  It is a teaching of righteousness for you and me.  In fact, in the Torah (Lev 19:27), the whole subject of beards is legislated by YHWH when He specifically prohibits the shaving or destroying of the beard. 

 

 

Yes, Thousands

 

For a fact, the Torah and the rest of the Scriptures have literally thousands of instructions, teachings and pieces of information which go beyond the commandment level of thou shall do or not do.  These instructions and teachings in truth and righteousness are there for our growth and edification.  That’s why it is so crucial for us to study to be approved. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 40--Life and the Torah

 

 

The Extent 

 

For true believers, the Scriptures define a way of life and living.  Gerson D. Cohen, in the Foreword to “A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice” (p. xix), by Isaac Klein, indicated that in the Jewish mentality, the word “Torah” (instruction, teaching and/or law, as contained in the books of Genesis to Deuteronomy) is the closest thing to what might be called “religion” in the context of other cultures. 

 

But Cohen went on to add that Torah is far more than what we moderns would call religion; that Torah encompasses and seeks to regulate every moment of life, including even its termination in death; and that nothing human is beyond the scope of its concern, and accordingly, of its scale of judgment and its program of prescription. 

 

In going on, he noted that it is for this reason that Torah is often called a way of life, for its purpose is to teach Jews how to act, think and even feel.  The premise on which Torah is based is that--viz: 

 

“all aspects of life--leisure no less than business, worship or rites of passage...are part of the covenant... In the eyes of Torah there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as the purely private domain, for even in solitude...one has the capacity and the duty to serve God.” 

 

While the focus of Cohen’s comments was on the Jews, his excellent and perceptive findings correctly apply to all “Israelites” of the lost ten tribes of Yisrael, as well as all of the legitimate Jews found today in the world.  And by extension, they can be equally applied to all persons of whatever background. 

 

 

Everything Applies 

 

In a word, the Scriptures prescribe “how” the real called out ones are supposed to conduct their lives--correctly, in terms of religion, culture, custom and indeed in their whole civilization.  This thinking may come as a surprise to people who read, think and approach life with traditional Christian theology.  But it is the very heart, purpose, goal and reality of the Scriptures. 

 

The MOST HIGH has given His followers a complete outline of how to carry on their lives and how to interact with other persons in quite some detail in every and all situations, when one looks at the totality of His message in the Old and New Testaments. 

 

The Apostle Shaul must have had the same idea in mind when he wrote to the Romans that “everything” written in the past (certainly, in the Tanakh) was written to teach us (Rom 15:4, per the “Complete Jewish Bible”).  Obviously, to teach us, the message (all of it) is one to and for each of us personally and individually (as well as collectively). 

 

It is for this reason that simple, little, historical records in the Scriptures are important--like in indicating that Avraham wanted Yitzhak to have a wife from his own racial kinsmen (Gen 24:4), and that Rebekah correctly veiled herself when she entered into Yitzhak’s presence for the first time (Gen 24:65)--as has been described in the former chapter. 

 

As was noted earlier, these little facts are a part of the teachings to each of us, per Shaul’s words (both issues will be further described in some detail in remarks in subsequent chapters herein). 

 

In his “Commentary of the Torah” (p. viii), previously quoted herein, Richard Elliott Friedman wrote that the Torah is not to be just read, but it is to be studied.  Yes, the Torah is the foundation of all knowledge and understanding of truth.  Therefore, it must be studied by the learners of YHWH YESHUA (in the Hebrew mentality, a disciple is a learner, as noted elsewhere herein.  To be a disciple, one must be a learner). 

 

 

The Foundational Torah 

 

The student of truth must remember that even the book of Genesis is a part of the Torah which should be the foundation of faith for all believers.  All of the historical information in Genesis and the rest of the Torah is there for our moral instruction. 

 

The same is true with the books of Samuel and Kings; which, by the way, contain moral instructions, historical information and prophetic information on the future.  In fact, the prophetic role is so important that they are called prophetic books.  Thus, in the Jewish canon and presentation of the Tanakh, the books of Samuel and Kings are found in the Tanakh’s section of the prophets. 

 

Moshe demonstrated the freshness of the Torah when he wrote “on this day,” just before YHWH gave the law (Ex 19:1).  As outlined in a prior chapter, the study of Torah is always current and fresh, as though the Torah was given this day or today (“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” p. 242-243). 

 

Despite the “King James Version’s” wording error in Exodus 19:1, the truth is that the study of Torah is always in the present tense.  It is not just something for the past and history.  It is for us right now--today!  And that includes each and every word, letter and mark, as YESHUA Himself declared (Matt 5:18). 

 

 

The Problem in Christianity 

 

The problem that much of so-called humanity faces on this issue is that Christendom has for years told its ignorant followers that the Old Testament law was done away with and was not for them. 

 

In a sense, Christianity has essentially abolished the Tanakh and especially the Torah.  While several Christians brag and boast about obeying the law (to be later addressed), it is a rare few who even read or study the Torah. 

 

Moreover, while allowing Christians to possess, to own and even to read the Tanakh writings (in their “Bibles”), the churches have contented themselves with relegating the OT words to a state of unimportance and of no application or concern to modern Christians.  Effectively, Christendom became a NT religion only. 

 

Therefore, Christians become New Testament people who are only concerned with the words of the NT, as if the OT is not to have any impact or influence on their lives at all.  After all, in their view, their sweet “Jesus” not only abolished all of the Old Testament laws, but even the moral applicability of the entire Tanakh as well. 

 

Therefore, such individuals, reading particularly the Old Testament, just gloss over it with no real concern for what it says.  Hence, they can never get it through their heads that YHWH’s Words (in both the OT and the NT) are for them and for them in the context of how to live their lives--today and everyday. 

 

Perhaps it is because of these false teachings by Christian Churches and their leaders and spokesmen that the typical Christian has the same mind set as the ancient sun worshipper had in the old sun cults in terms of applying religion to his or her life.  Religion has never dominated the entire lives, thoughts and actions of false worshippers ever--past or present. 

 

 

Children Absorb the Bad 

 

Tragically, for the children growing up in the homes of false worshipping Christian parents, they have been taught the same lies and distortions.  As infants and babies begin developing and progressing into adulthood, most Christian parents repeatedly tell their offspring that YHWH’s law (Torah) was done away with and is not for them. 

 

By example and by rote teaching from their parents, many growing youngsters quickly realize that religion is not supposed to dominate their entire lives.  It is not supposed to be a part and parcel of their social and economic order, culture, customs or civilization.  Religion is just one of several things that their lives circle around. 

 

Too often, their focus on religion even takes a back seat to the other things in their lives.  The job, possessions, wealth, assets, hobbies, home, family, sex, entertainment, pleasures, etc. (correctly idols) are all far more important than religion to the typical false worshipper--to include Christians in general. 

 

However, these false teachings, ideas, thinking and beliefs are categorically not what one actually finds in the Scriptures.  The Word of The ELOHIM presents quite a contrasting picture for YESHUA’s followers and believers in truth. 

 

 

The Torah is a Daily Matter Every Day 

 

The above quoted Gerson D. Cohen also noted that the comprehensive outlook on life and its regulations is basically alien to most modern systems of value--even to religious ones.  To most moderns, religion is one domain among several (Foreword to “A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice,” p. xix).  As just cited, in the above comments, this is certainly reality among both past and present false worshippers! 

 

Former Professor David Flusser of Hebrew University wrote that Judaism (obviously, in the context of obedience to the Torah) is a religion with a comprehensive system of prescriptions and prohibitions, including ritual law, which was designed to regulate daily life--certainly, to include both religious and secular aspects (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 632). 

 

Going on, Flusser argued that such a legal system governing the entire daily lives of its adherents simply did not exist in the first century CE Roman Empire or the rest of Europe.  In order to conquer the empire, Christendom had to become “law free” to appeal to the masses in the Roman Empire who had no conception of the presence of laws and standards which monitored and controlled all daily life. 

 

The point of both Flusser’s and Cohen’s remarks was that the Torah is not just something to think about on Sabbath.  Assuredly, it is a system of values to regulate every moment and every second of every person’s life every day. 

 

 

Truth Modified--Changed

 

Naturally, the Scriptural system would not appeal to the sun worshippers in the sun cults of the old Roman Empire.  Thus, Christendom adjusted and modified her faith over the years so that she could have a successful outreach to the various, old, sun worship cults. 

 

One of the quick things that developed was the idea that the Christian religion was something to only think about or be concerned with on Sunday mornings.  Early Catholicism fell into line with this doctrine with the great emphasis on mass and the confession.  The Roman Church has held for ages that the greatest of sins are missing mass and confession. 

 

In time, the good Catholic Christians quickly learned that they could do almost whatever they wanted to do during the week, providing that they came to church on Sundays to be instructed by the Christian priests and to participate in the mass and confession.  With the confessional, all of the so called sins done the past week could be forgiven. 

 

Effectively, the Catholic false worshipper could go back out in society for another week and sin some more with little regard to consequences since he/she would have to be at church the next Sunday and could be easily forgiven of the committed sins by attending confession. 

 

 

The Separation 

 

Therefore, a separation between religion on Sunday and living one’s life the rest of the week quickly developed in Christendom.  In this sense, Christianity is precisely like the old sun worship cults--where religion was only something to think about and be concerned with during the weekly, Sunday, worship services. 

 

Although there was some theoretical ideas in some sun cults (like in old Greece, with the early Zeus worshippers, as discussed elsewhere herein) on incorporating religious values into the secular lives of adherents, this certainly was not the real world of old Greece and its Roman Empire successor. 

 

The prevailing Greek religions of the polytheistic gods and deities never really became the primary focal point of the lives of the collective peoples, although some individuals were obviously committed to their false religious teachings.  Practically speaking, the sun worshipper could go about his life without regard to religious laws and conduct once sun worship services were over. 

 

To clarify this reality, it should be noted that the secular sun worship societies always found it difficult, if not impossible, to try to impose a particular sun worship faith on the collective people because the collective societies were generally polytheistic and religiously divided, much like one finds today in modern, denominational Christianity (in contrast to ancient Yisrael where the Hebrew religion was monotheistic and synonymous with the people and culture). 

 

 

Obey at the Slightest Hint 

 

One of the marvelous ideas in the Scriptures is that of meekness and humility or being low or at least thinking low of one’s self.  In the Greek NT, this idea is expressed in the Greek words praos/praus.  Thus, YESHUA was lowly and meek (Matt 11:29) and came humbly to the people of Jerusalem on a donkey (Matt 21:2-5).  Accordingly, a blessing is pronounced on the meek (Matt 5:5). 

 

For a woman, her ticket to greatness lies in being humble and meek (I Pet 3:4).  No wonder the NT writers would often emphasize meekness and humility (I Cor 4:21; II Cor 10:1; Gal 5:23; 6:1; Eph 4:2; Col 3:12; I Tim 6:11; II Tim 2:25; Titus 3:2; Jas 1:21; 3:13; I Pet 3:15). 

 

The basis for this focus upon meekness and humility really comes from the Tanakh where the comparable idea is framed in the Hebrew anav/anavah.  These words appear several times in the Psalms and the prophets.  One of the great presentations of this idea is at Psalms 37:11 where the text reads that the meek will inherit the earth (as quoted by YESHUA at Matt 5:5). 

 

Subsequent chapters herein will focus upon the concept of achieving humility and meekness in the process of true conversion and reconciliation (in dealing with the pride and carnality of the flesh).  There is no need to attempt to cover that profoundly important subject at this time.  But the idea associated with meekness has an interesting relationship to the Torah and living accordingly. 

 

One day, this writer was listening to a radio talk show and a caller commented upon the theological meaning of the Hebrew anav/anavah.  He said that the idea really has its basis in the way chariot horses respond to the slightest nudge or flexion upon the reins by the chariot driver.  Good horses are so attuned and so disciplined that the most insignificant pull or flex of the reins causes the horses to respond a certain way. 

 

In looking through several Hebrew lexicons, this writer was unable to find that exact quotation--although it makes perfect sense and probably does have some basis in the Hebrew.  In the future discussion on humility, the reality of achieving humility is suggested in the breaking of a fatted bullock in the stall (Jer 46:21).  So there could easily be linkage to the disciplining of chariot horses.  

 

 

More 

 

The “Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament” (p. 682-683) indicates that the Hebrew anav is derived from the root ana which means “to force or to try to force submission and to punish or inflict pain upon, mostly in the Piel.  Birkeland...defines the verb ‘to find oneself in a stunted, humble, lowly position.’”  For the cognate anaw, this source suggests that it “expresses the intended outcome of affliction:  humility.”  

 

The anaw “consider and experience God as their deliverer...receiving grace (undeserved favor) from him... They rejoice when God is praised, seek God..., and keep his ordinances... They will wait on God...and are guided by him...”  Per the TWOT, the Hebrew ani (meaning affliction) is often confused with anaw since both words are related. 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 8, p. 1072-1073) has some interesting comments upon anavah.  Judaica says that humility “is not merely the absence of pride, but a positive force which expresses itself in constructive action.  It represents the peak of moral perfection, and in the ladder of virtues, is superior even to saintliness.” 

 

For the bottom line on humility, Judaica (v. 8, p. 1073) says that it “is not an isolated trait, but rather a life-style, which encompasses and structures every aspect of human thought and experience.”  Manifestly, Judaica has it right.  Walking the walk with The ELOHIM does involve every aspect of human thought and experience. 

 

Hence, some Jewish teachers teach that “humanity is to be wholly engaged in the fulfillment of God’s will--both spacially and temporally.  The individual commandments are thus no more than a detailed elaboration and concretization of humanity’s submission to and nearness to the Divine” (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 62). 

 

Truly, we must become like the best trained and disciplined chariot horses in responding to the slightest commands and instructions for Yisrael in the Torah.  We must be totally submissive to the will of YHWH.  None of us should require much in the way of push or prodding to be obedient and live the Torah every day as a way of life. 

 

 

Religion Left Behind 

 

Regardless of why, most Christians tend to leave their religion behind when they move to their secular lives in their culture and civilization.  Christian politicians, bureaucrats, doctors, lawyers, judges, policemen, garbage workers and on and on turn their backs on their religion in most of their lives and activities. 

 

In the generic sense, the Western Christian civilization has come to separate religion from its secular life so extensively that whole government policies, directions, laws and operations are predicated upon the theory that religion has no place in secular activities and particularly in government (in the context of the separation of government and religious faith). 

 

Therefore, religion receives little or no thought or attention from most Christians, despite The ELOHIM’s command to worship Him in truth--which includes the worship of Him daily in one’s entire life and spectrum of possibilities (Jo 4:23-24).  The basis for this Christian thinking clearly ties back to the old sun cults where religion did not dominate the lives of the collective population on a daily basis. 

 

Thus, the typical Christian thinks that his religion is just something to think about on Sunday mornings during the worship ceremonies.  They suppose that these religious expressions during their worship services must be and are totally separated from the rest of their lives. 

 

In short, most false worshippers (ancient and modern) are not really very serious about their religions.  To them, religion is not the most important thing in their lives because it only dominates a very small portion of their time and lives.  Other things usually carry far more weight and importance. 

 

Perhaps the great difficulty Christianity has faced (and indeed, the same dilemma faced by all of the old sun worship cults in ancient history) is a failure to understand that man has a duty and obligation to his CREATOR which is revealed first in the Torah and second in the Tanakh generally.  The possibility of religious duties every day in a believer’s life is totally foreign in generic Christianity. 

 

 

An Illustration 

 

Some years ago, Corra Harris wrote a book with the supposed true story of a Methodist preacher and/or circuit rider named William in North Georgia (near a place called Mossi Creek).  It was made into a popular Hollywood movie in 1951 called “I’d Climb the Highest Mountain.” 

 

William and his wife came to this rural community in about 1905 to serve four years before moving on to Atlanta.  Very early, William and his wife chose to side with a young man named Jack, who was trying to court or spark a teenage girl who was the daughter of the local fat cat, general store owner.  The girl’s father didn’t like Jack and called him a scoundrel.  Thus, the girl’s parents would not allow the courtship. 

 

But apparently, the two young people were seeing each other on the QT which was facilitated by William’s wife on one occasion.  The merchant became angry and upset over the participation of the preacher and his wife in supporting Jack and the romance.  So he came over to see the preacher, just after the last incident, to supposedly have it out. 

 

As it turned out, the merchant was the biggest money contributor to the church.  So the preacher and his wife were obviously concerned.  Rather than apologizing for interfering in the lives of the merchant and his family, William chose another tactic when he went out to talk to the store owner. 

 

At that time in Americana, horses and buggies were popular for transportation.  William had a very fine, young mare which was an excellent trotting or running horse.  The merchant had an old, gray, run down, sway-backed horse which had a bad leg and was of questionable value.  So, rather than discuss the romance, William subtly and immediately proposed an even trade of his good mare for the old gray horse. 

 

Of course, the merchant, with greed in his eyes, completely forgot about and ignored his problem over Jack.  He accepted the proposal and even happily proceeded to give the church his next assessment or quota of money.  Everybody left that day happy.  The preacher pacified his biggest contributor.  And the contributor swindled his preacher in a horse trade. 

 

 

Both Were Wrong 

 

The only problem with this whole affair is that the actions of both men completely ignored the will of The MOST HIGH, as stated in the laws and instructions in the Torah.  These two men never understood that the Torah is something for both of them during each and every day and every moment of their lives. 

 

The merchant was wrong (he later regretted it and made some amends) because it is sin to take advantage of a rea (racial kinsman) and achieve something unfairly in a commercial transaction (as was briefly cited earlier and as will be commented upon in a later chapter in some detail).  In other words, YHWH requires a fair transaction where neither party is cheated or shortchanged. 

 

But the preacher was even more wrong and especially since both he and his wife should have known (as spiritual leaders) more than a lay person in the group of the terms of the mitzwot and/or teachings of the Torah.  Obviously, neither the preacher or his wife had any conception of the Torah and YHWH’s will. 

 

As long as the merchant’s daughter was in her father’s household, she should have obeyed his wishes and stayed away from the young man.  She was wrong.  Her father was absolutely right.  This reality will be more carefully addressed in later chapters herein dealing with sex and marriage. 

 

The preacher and his wife were grossly wrong for interfering in the merchant’s family.  They should have stayed out of it and supported him if anything (since he was righteously acting).  Yet, the preacher and his wife interfered in this man’s affairs and never bothered to offer an apology (as is demanded when wrong is done, to be discussed in future chapters herein in the context of reconciliation). 

 

The store owner did right to try to come over to the preacher’s house and have it out (in the sense of apparently being reconciled) with his brother and spiritual leader.  This was a proper action in the confrontation (as will be considered in future chapters herein on brotherly love and sin and reconciliation). 

 

Rather than address the conflict and resolve it, the preacher subtly (like Satan) played upon the merchant’s greed, selfishness and carnality (to be later assessed).  The preacher was too proud to apologize and too greedy for money (church contributions) to let the matter go by without resolving it from his perspective.  

 

Even after having this problem and incorrectly dealing with it, the preacher still did not stop his interference because the young couple decided to elope and came to the preacher to be married (and without even a local marriage license from the county seat).  The preacher married them, knowing full well the opposition of the girl’s parents. 

 

 

Modern Thinking 

 

Quite naturally, the modern position would be in support of the young couple and of the preacher for his support of them.  Few people would ever bother to read the Tanakh and attempt to ascertain YHWH’s will.  There are instructions and teachings (yes, laws) in the Torah which address all facets of this interplay between people.  What a tragedy it was that no one involved was concerned about these requirements. 

 

Assuredly, this reportedly true story could be told for thousands of Americans.  There is nothing unique about it.  Really, this is life for most of us in the flesh.  We have our own conceptions of right and wrong.  We never understand that The HIGHEST has legislated almost all facets of our lives in His Word--primarily in the Torah. 

 

Too often, we obey and heed our ideas and thinking rather than turning to the Torah and letting YHWH’s Word be our guide to righteousness.  The problem is compounded because Christian preachers have written off the Torah and its righteousness for both them and their dumb sheep followers. 

 

 

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 

 

Most of the world, to certainly include the world found in the Western Christian civilization, has come to believe that people can do whatever they want to do--subject only to the laws of their national states and now larger global federations like United Europe, NATO and the United Nations. 

 

But strangely enough, The MOST HIGH did have some very specific words to say on this matter of conducting one’s life and being in his entire culture and civilization every moment of every day and not just something to think and ponder upon during weekly worship services.  The wise Shlomo addressed it in Ecclesiastes 12:13. 

 

He said that the whole duty of Adam man is to fear The ELOHIM and to keep His commandments (Hebrew mitzwah, singular or mitzvoth/mitzwot, plural).  This grand, wonderful, extraordinary and far reaching piece of wisdom is “the conclusion of the whole matter,” as the “Soncino Books of the Bible” (p. 190) indicate for Ecclesiastes--the final summing of the Book after taking all matters into consideration. 

 

In Judaism, some 613 express commandments (mitzwot) to man are identified and found to be stated in the Torah.  The writer of the present study at hand would not necessarily argue this count and identification of 613 mitzwot in the Torah. 

 

However, the point must be made that there could be a few more which have been missed in historic Judaism.  Hence, there could be more than 613.  Some Torah remarks are subject to complex interpretations which could open the door for them to actually be commandments on complex subjects not typically understood. 

 

An article by M. Weinfeld in “Hillel and Jesus” (p. 60) noted that in the “Jewish religious experience, there is great joy in fulfilling a commandment.  The law is observed not for the sake of the exercise, but to perform the will of the Creator...

 

“Judaism sanctifies life by eradicating the separation of jus from fas (of law from religion) by rendering all aspects of life--the synagogue, the home, and the market--a continuous act of divine service.  Every step taken by the Jew is directed by awareness that he or she is fulfilling God’s will.” 

 

Weinfeld quoted Rav Jose from the Talmud-- “let all your deeds be done for the sake of Heaven” (m.Ab 2:12).  This statement apparently comes from the great Jewish sage Hillel (who will be addressed in some detail in later chapters) who is said to have performed “such deeds of eating, drinking, and bathing for the sake of Heaven.”  In Judaism, the word Heaven is often used in reference to YHWH The CREATOR. 

 

 

All Works Will Be Judged 

 

Shlomo’s penetrating remarks continue in Ecclesiastes 12:14 where he reports that The ELOHIM will bring every and all works into judgment, to include every secret thing whether it be good or evil (perhaps of not only Adam man; but also, all works of even the behemah and chaiyah, as will be assessed in subsequent chapters). 

 

As the “Soncino Books of the Bible” (p. 191) communicate, the meaning here is that this verse expresses a characteristically Hebraic point of view and that man has to give a reckoning to The ELOHIM for all (100%) of his deeds which include even those which are known only to himself and hidden from other people. 

 

“Soncino” (p. 191) goes on to indicate that the true philosophy of life must consequently have relationship to conduct, and so direct it that it can bear the “Divine” scrutiny. 

 

Perhaps the profound nature of the above remarks must be present in the instructions from Moshe that the Torah shall not depart from one’s mouth; that one should meditate upon its words day and night (in order for one to do those words); and then one shall make his way prosperous and have success (Jos 1:8).  This injunction was given as a blessing to Yehoshua, but it applies equally to all believers. 

 

The wonderful presentation from Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 manifestly communicates Adam man’s whole duty in life as obeying all, 100%, of The ELOHIM’s commandments.  Every work, deed, activity and function of man (whether good or bad and whether in secret or out in the open in terms of other men) will be brought into judgment--obviously, on judgment day. 

 

In essence, man will be held accountable for each and all of his activities.  Each person will have to answer for more than just Sunday morning worship services.  He will have to respond to and defend each and every work, deed and act that he has ever accomplished in his various roles in the whole society, culture and civilization. 

 

Yes, man will even be held accountable for what he has done in government activities as well.  On judgment day, there will be no such thing as a so-called separation of “church and state,” as is commonly believed by modern Christians. 

 

 

My Many Sins 

 

In this study at hand, this writer has chosen to reveal from time to time some very horrible and terrible sins charged to my account in the context of communicating knowledge and understanding about the message in this production.  Like the sins of Adam, Noah, Avraham, Moshe, David, Shlomo, Shaul, Kefa and others were laid out for our instruction and edification, some of my shameful sins have been laid out. 

 

Accordingly, this writer must confess that i, too, once was a Sunday morning only Christian who supposed that my religion solely had relevance and application on Sunday mornings during the so-called worship services.  Over the years, The HIGHEST has allowed me to see how sinful and wrong i really was. 

 

Through His grace, i have repented of those sins and have tried to make my religion (of recognition, commitment and obedience to the totality of the Torah) a part and parcel of all of my daily life--not only in worship, but also in secular affairs as well. 

 

Each of us needs to get into the habit of confessing his sins to others.  On judgment day, nothing will be hid, as Shlomo so perceptively pointed out.  All will be revealed and laid out for all to see.  Finally, everyone needs to take YHWH’s Torah seriously (and start meditating upon it day and night) because we all will one day be judged by its standards of truth and righteousness. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 41--YHWH YESHUA on Change I

 

 

Does He Change? 

 

This chapter continues on with the former excursion into Scriptural verity.  Here, one more basic, underlying piece of truth needs comment.  On this, it is an absolute fact of reality that Christendom seems to grow and thrive on its stress in the belief that The EVERLIVING ONE is a personality of indecisiveness, uncertainty, confusion and frequent change. 

 

Of all of the world’s religions in recorded history, it is hard to fathom that there has been or could be any other religion which is as riddled with theories of change, jumping around from one idea to another and Babylonian confusion, as is Christianity.  There seems to be almost no end to Christendom’s theories on change. 

 

This and the following chapters will now address this question of change. 

 

While most Christians allow some measure of uniformity and consistency in the Old Testament, they are obsessed with the idea of enormous change between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  Christians love, cherish and seek out change so much so that they are quite happy and content to enunciate a position, suggesting fantastic change even within the New Testament. 

 

This study at hand describes a number of these alleged changes and their impact upon truth and righteousness.  Without attempting to delve into these many areas now, a few will be pointed out and highlighted to conclusively establish that Churchianity has taught and advocated extraordinary change in the Scriptures over the centuries (and in truth and righteousness). 

 

 

The Brotherhood of Man 

 

The primary focus of this Christian theory on change is devoted to those teachings, edicts, laws and commandments in the Tanakh which Christians simply oppose and refuse to abide by.  In other words, anything that a believer might do and perform in the vein of a duty to The ELOHIM (which expresses the shema, in the love of The ELOHIM first and most), Christians allow that it was changed. 

 

Conversely, anything which involves the Christian theories of the brotherhood of man, humanism, and duties and laws regulating personal conduct with other so-called human beings was not changed--per Christian teachings.  Christians love the idea of the brotherhood of man (which comes from the old sun worship cults, as will be proven later).  Churchianity generally supports these edicts without reservation. 

 

With this theological background, Christians have little use for any type of Scriptural ritual (like bathing/cleansing requirements in Leviticus 15, or in actual worship practices), food restrictions, Sabbath and festival observances, etc.  About the only thing which fits into this category that Christendom has retained is the tithing requirement (which will be addressed in comments hereafter). 

 

Thus, Christians are against any idea that The MOST HIGH could have cleansing requirements.  Yet, Christians have cooked up their own theories about the need to bathe and impose quarantines and sanitation measures in their cultures.  It’s just that they don’t like what The HIGHEST has prescribed. 

 

Since diet does not directly reflect upon Christian ideas on humanism (deeds to other humans/humanoids), Christians are totally against what the Word says about food.  In general, most Christians hold that there were food restrictions in the OT.  But in the NT, their sweet “Jesus” changed all of that and opened the door for Christians to eat whatever they want to eat (as will be addressed in later chapters on diet). 

 

And while Christians are generally opposed to Scriptural Sabbath days, they love their own human ordained days and festivals.  For instance, Christians believe that the Seventh day Sabbath was changed to Sunday, that Passover was changed to Easter, that the spring new year was changed to the dead of winter, that the day starts at midnight instead of sundown, that Sukkot was changed to Halloween, etc. 

 

So it would not be correct to say that Christendom outrightly abolished all of these teachings which relate to the love of The ELOHIM.  Instead, it is to say that, all of sudden, most of these OT teachings were somehow changed in the NT.  For those laws that Christians declare were abolished, they imply that Christianity was allowed to come along and establish “Christian” substitutes. 

 

As just cited, Christians love, cherish and seek after any and all teachings, laws and rules relative to the brotherhood of man/humanism (which is basic Christian theology, as derived from the old sun cults, to be later described).  Thus, thou shall not murder, steal, tell lies, commit adultery, etc are good teachings and must be retained (although modern Christendom has been changing her ideas on adultery and homosexuality). 

 

Thus, all forms of slavery and servitude became the greatest of evils and sex sins became minor and could be overlooked or re-defined as acceptable (in modern times).  And of course, Canaanites and the behemah were no longer to be looked down upon racially, but were proper subjects for racial amalgamation and miscegenation--through the racial integration of all humans/humanoids. 

 

 

Either Abolish or Change 

 

To support this strange paradox of changing laws, teachings and commandments, Christians generally hold that the OT law (the Torah) was abolished and done away with forever (as discussed in a prior chapter).  But somehow, those OT laws relative to humanism and the brotherhood of man were reinstated in the NT (in the vein that they are directly or indirectly referred to or allowed in the NT). 

 

While the destruction of all Old Testament laws seems to be the essence of Christian theology (except for tithing--which for an obvious reason has been largely retained, as just noted above), it is well to note that Christianity teaches that her “Jesus” (usually pronounced as Gee-Zeus, per the Greek “Iesous”) went on to change many other things of great importance in the Old Testament Scriptures. 

 

Moreover, on this theory of change, one of the interesting twists has been that Christians even allow change internally in the NT, as noted above.  Later chapters herein will broach this idea in the vein of the so-called great commission.  Christians insist that it was both given and changed in the NT. 

 

Perhaps one of the most fantastic theories of change occurred when Christians teach and advocate that the Scriptural Hebrew language was somehow changed to Greek in the first century CE (with the adoption of the Septuagint, as mentioned in a prior chapter).  The formerly mentioned Richard and the Christian Identity movement are obsessed with this stupidity (perhaps because of hatred for Judaism). 

 

 

Change Is Not Truth 

 

The point is that Christianity loves the idea of change and will declare, teach and advocate any and all changes which will support her basic theology of the brotherhood of man.  Of course, this effective Christian theology positively is not a part of Scriptural truth (Num 23:19; I Sam 15:29; Ps 89:34; 110:4; Isa 44:26, 45:23, 55:11; Rom 11:29--to be later outlined). 

 

And as the student of truth may already know, or will know as this study unfolds, this Christian idea of change by The HIGHEST is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of Christian theology being at odds with the Scriptures. 

 

In fact, if The MOST HIGH was so indecisive and changing, why then shouldn’t persons believing such things get concerned over their own state of supposed salvation?  If The ELOHIM changes so much and so fast, why should He not change the rules on salvation?  Maybe He did and perhaps these Christians just didn’t get the word on the change. 

 

 

Trustworthy? 

 

Carrying this reasoning forward, the student of truth can readily perceive that if The CREATOR was changy changy (as Christianity believes and teaches), how can an honest person believe anything that He says in His Word?  Per this reasoning of change, whatever The EVERLASTING ONE said at one place could well have been changed in another place. 

 

Actually, as the lover of truth has long ago learned, YHWH is consistent all the way through His Book.  What He said in one place (like in Exodus), He says the same in all other places (like in the New Testament). 

 

As will be shortly shown, The CREATOR is immutable and changes not.  That’s why that if He has made certain promises of salvation in one place in His Word, one can be assured that He has not changed them in another place. 

 

In fact, this stupidity of change is just wishful thinking by misinformed persons who are constantly working and striving to make The HIGHEST out to be a fool, so that they can justify their own personal contempt toward Him and His laws and words of righteousness (by insisting that He changed a number of things and particularly so in the New Testament). 

 

However, the truth is that The MOST HIGH was not and is not a perpetuator of change.  He is consistently the same--yesterday, today and tomorrow.  He is the same forever.  His Word is always consistent and harmonious.  It is not Babylonian confusion. 

 

In terms of what He said in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and the other OT texts, He never changed in the NT.  He is always consistent throughout the Scriptures. 

 

 

The Flip Side, Revisited 

 

The previously cited article on “The Flip Side,” in the Jan/Feb 2001 “Believer’s Advocate” (p. 3-5), addressed the prospects of change between the Old and New Testaments in the vein of the flip or other side of a question--which is not necessarily an opposing side. 

 

In terms of the two testaments, this article pointed out that one testament does not contradict the other; but rather, upholds it.  They both deal with the same subject (which is the “Plan of Salvation”). 

 

While there is some emphases placed upon the New Testament (by Christians), that does not mean that “the New in any way opposes, overshadows, or supersedes the Old; but rather, that the New Testament authenticates the Old.”  Thus, it is not anything like throwing away something old and replacing it with something new. 

 

The essence of this representation was that the two testaments do not oppose each other whatsoever.  But rather, they complement each other in every way.  The only confusion which results surfaces when one tries to make the two testaments into two, separate opposing covenants. 

 

 

Two Deities 

 

But commonly and regularly in Christian eyes, it often does seem that the so-called "Bible" is a book with two testaments about two, diversely different, so-called "Gods."  First, there is the Old Testament "father God," who Christendom looks upon as having been a hard, harsh, stern, mean, old tyrant. 

 

Christians view this "father God" as a “deity” who (1) demanded strict obedience to his bad, old laws (which were really impossible to keep, as Christian preachers keep telling their ignorant subjects); (2) allowed horrible slavery to persist; and (3) ordered the slaughter of multitudes of poor, innocent, loving, wonderful, Canaanite and Amalekite men, women and children--to include even very small infants. 

 

Furthermore, many modern, liberal, humanistic Christians believe that this “father God” wickedly commanded death by stoning for "minor" infractions of His bad old laws--such as homosexuality, adultery, miscegenation (i.e. an Adamite and a behemah--per the Hebrew at Ex 22:19; Jer 31:27) and the breaking of the Seventh day Sabbath.  As they see it, death is too harsh for anything. 

 

 

Changes? 

 

Alternatively, Churchianity perceives in her "sweet Jesus" a second type of “deity” who completely changed all of the harshness of the Old Testament "father God," to include the abolishment of all of the Old Testament laws which defined sin and placed a moral duty and obligation on man toward his CREATOR (like keeping the Sabbath laws, etc). 

 

Christianity furthermore sees her sweet, permissive “Jesus” as being compromising, loving (how can one love apart from obeying the law?), understanding, kind, compassionate, forgiving, easy, effeminate, weak and a sissy to be walked on and run over at will. 

 

Of course, in this climate of two different deities, who are diametrically opposed to each other, Churchianity's Gee-Zeus ultimately got the upper hand in the New Testament when he came and effectively abolished the law and changed everything from the Tanakh which Christians didn't like and disapproved of for their own humanistic reasons and religion. 

 

Tragically, this attitude on two different “deities” in Christendom (one good and one evil) still surfaces its head occasionally, as evidenced in the Jul/Aug 2000 “America’s Promise Newsletter” (p. 1) when editor Dave Barley noted the belief of some Christians that the “Holy Spirit of the Old Testament” is said to be “hard, unforgiving, impersonal, and almost devoid of the love and other spiritual qualities ascribed to the Holy Spirit” of the NT. 

 

Though Barley expressed his thinking that such a duality is erroneous, it does demonstrate the fact that much of Christendom at large still persists in believing that the “deity” of the OT is an entirely different personality than the “deity” of the NT.  One is hard, harsh and bad.  The other is kind, merciful, loving and good (in the eyes of many Christians). 

 

 

Earl F. Jones, Revisited 

 

Of course, this mentality on the two different “deities” probably plays a central role in the incredible Christian apathy and indifference toward the Old Testament (as discussed in prior chapters).  Earl F. Jones, in the May-Jun 2001 “Intelligence Newsletter” (p. 1), perceptively wrote that “most Judeo-Christians don’t read the Old Testament and those who do don’t believe what it says.” 

 

The writer of this study at hand can only suggest one alteration, change or addition to the words of Jones.  Earl Jones was writing in the context of the non-Identity Christian Churches (which he and many Identity people define as Judeo-Christian). 

 

Certainly, he believed that the Christian Identity people (to be later addressed herein) do read and obey the Old Testament.  From his perspective, it was only the other Christians who do not read or believe it. 

 

While Jones surely thought highly of his Christian Identity colleagues, the truth is that they likewise don’t read or certainly don’t believe or obey much of the Old Testament either.  However, admittedly, probably most of them do a little better than much of traditional Christianity.  Tragically, this isn’t saying much because there is such gross Christian neglect of the Old Testament that the whole affair is sickening. 

 

For sure, this ridiculous thinking about two different “deities” in the two different testaments has materially affected virtually the whole bulk of Christianity and Christendom’s attitude in addressing the Tanakh.  Tragically, Christians are utterly lost on almost any question from the OT. 

 

 

Marcion, Revisited 

 

Incidentally, this Christian thinking (within Churchianity) of two different “gods” goes all the way back to the “kook” Marcion (discussed previously), who was in Rome in c137 CE.  He evidently was a good, loyal Catholic in his early years, but was eventually excommunicated by them for being a heretic in c144 CE (but only after he had edited and changed some of the NT period writings, as described earlier). 

 

In Marcion’s view, there was a total discontinuity between the OT and the NT, between Israel and the church, between Christianity and Judaism, and between the “god” of the OT and the “god” of the NT (per “The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church,” p. 629). 

 

He saw the OT Creator as not being a good “god” at all--but being an imperfect, wrathful, inferior “deity,” who created an imperfect creation.  Marcion believed that the NT “deity” was superior, perfect and completely good, who came to earth to right all of the wrongs made by the OT Creator (per “The Westminister Dictionary of Church History,” p. 524). 

 

Some of these early Christians (evidently followers of Marcion) actually believed that the NT “deity” came to earth to deliver people from the “vengeful God of the Jews” (“The New Testament A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings,” p. 5). 

 

Though the Roman Catholic Church leaders did eventually discover that Marcion had some (mental) problems and reacted by kicking him out of their organization, it would be very beneficial to appreciate the fact that while they rejected him, some of his stupid theories and speculations have persisted in much of Christendom to this very day. 

 

This Marcion thinking, as found today in modern Churchianity, is far more subtle, sophisticated and discreet because few Christians would be as blunt and dogmatic publicly as Marcion was in his words and stated theology. 

 

Perhaps the dilemma most Christians face is how in the world can they abolish the OT from their “Bibles” without causing an uproar.  So they keep it.  They just don’t appreciate it or value its words.  They carry it around--all the while that they are totally hypocritical about its words. 

 

 

Gnostic Ideas 

 

The essence of Marcion’s thinking has come to be known as Gnosticism over the years.  In “The New Testament A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” (p. 5-6), author Bart D. Ehrman seems to suggest that Marcion might not have been a Gnostic, per se.  Admittedly, Ehrman does allow that Marcion carried many Gnostic beliefs, but does not name him as such at all. 

 

Actually, Ehrman probably is wrong on this implication because the evidence this writer has seen clearly communicates that Marcion was in the Gnostic camp (certainly, in theology).  Another point on this is that in those early days, there were several different  forms and groups of Gnostics which were not unified into one clear definition (“Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period,” p. 255). 

 

Anyway, early on, the kook Marcion was joined in Rome by another kook named Valentinus.  And clearly, both were big promoters of the demented ideas of Gnosticism (“Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth,” p. 254), which centered on the theory that special knowledge was needed for salvation. 

 

Supposedly, these Gnostic ideas were opposed by portions of the early Catholic Christian Church, although they were to survive and eventually gain a status as indicated elsewhere herein. 

 

One of the most famous opponents of Gnosticism was the Christian apologist and centrist Justin Martyr.  He evidently had some Gnostic ideas himself, though he allegedly was an opponent of the Gnostic teachers. 

 

Eric V. Snow, in his “Is Christianity a Fraud? A Preliminary Assessment of the Conder Thesis” (p. 55), noted that “Gnosticism, like the mystery religions, claimed an esoteric wisdom, sharply distinguishing between the uninitiated and the initiated.” 

 

Going on, Snow maintains that Gnosticism includes a marked sense of dualism, in which matter is evil but spirit is good.  It includes the belief that the “God of the Old Testament is identified as a stupid and evil god, a god of darkness, because he created the material world, but the god of the New Testament is good, a god of light.” 

 

Because Gnosticism has played such an enormously important role in Christianity, it will be further addressed in some detail in subsequent chapters herein on Christian Church history. 

 

In the previously mentioned “Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time” (p. 137), Darrell W. Conder suggests that the famous Simon the Sorcerer of Samaria (Acts 8:9) had a religion involving several beliefs--including Gnosticism and platonic philosophy.  This faith, according to Conder, eventually became Christianity.  The later chapters on Christian history will broach how this course came about. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 42--YHWH YESHUA on Change II

 

 

Ernest L. Martin, Revisited 

 

In an A.S.K. Prophetic Report on the “Place of Safety” (p. 3), the former Dr Ernest L. Martin wrote that the commandments for Christians are very different from those that “God” demanded of ancient Yisrael.  He said that we are now expected to do good works and to practice the fruits of the spirit. 

 

Obviously, the problem Martin had is that he didn’t understand that it is YHWH’s law (Torah) which defines and tells us what constitutes good works and clarifies the fruits of the spirit.  Correctly, The MOST HIGH’s mitzwot tell us how to do good deeds since the OT mitzwot constitute love and righteousness, as described in previous chapters. 

 

Like other Christians, Martin perhaps believed that Christianity or some Christian Church defines good works and/or the fruits of the spirit. 

 

A proper question at this point is when and where did YHWH’s Old Testament commandments about love and good change into something different in the New Testament?  Can a serious person actually believe that The ELOHIM is inconsistent in the two testaments? 

 

 

Karen Armstrong, Revisited 

 

Earlier, the writings of liberal theologian Karen Armstrong were cited in connection with a definition of love.  In her book, “A History of God” (p. 90), this former Catholic nun mentions a couple of things which pretty well summarize the still prevailing Marcion attitude in Christendom on the Tanakh and its laws. 

 

First, Armstrong refers to the 613 mitzwot (the commandments in the Torah) as being a “burden.”  Next, she goes on to charge that many of the Diaspora Jews (in Second Temple days) looked upon the Temple, “drenched” as it was in the blood of animals, as a “primitive and barbarous” institution. 

 

In this latter interpretation, it is easy to see that she has carefully crafted that statement with some of her own ideas, speculations and interpretations when she alleges that many of the Diaspora Jews in Second Temple days looked down upon the Jerusalem Temple.  Significantly, the Temple has always been the backbone of Judaism. 

 

It’s hard to imagine a sincere, religious Jew actually willing to criticize or condemn the Temple in any respect.  Because, however good or bad the Jews have been, most are clearly aware that the Temple represented The ELOHIM’s dwelling place (presence) on earth.  This reasoning certainly applies to “true” Jews of earlier times as well as today.  An exception may exist with some false Jews (to be broached in later chapters). 

 

Interestingly, the Jul-Sep 2000 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 34) gave the more common Jewish position on the Temple and sacrifices in ancient times as “Worship in the Tabernacle and Temple was always joyous.” 

 

As the “Hebrew Roots” article outlined, “sacrifices were always made with joy and gladness in the fact that what God required was being fulfilled” and that the daily sacrifice “had to be made willingly and with a happy heart, for if it were not, it was considered to be invalid” (on this reality, see II Chron 5:1, 7, 11-14). 

 

 

The So-Called Burden Comes From Sinners 

 

Furthermore, a most fascinating quotation was outlined from the Book earlier on the fact that some (sinning) people cry and moan frequently about "the burden" of The HIGHEST which they say is His Word (Jer 23:33-38).  It is manifest that Yirmeyahu probably had persons like Karen Armstrong in mind when she charges that YHWH’s 613 commandments are a “burden.” 

 

Besides the frequent Christian charges that YAH’s laws are a burden, many Christians call them a yoke and quote Acts 15:10 and its reference to a yoke on certain Jews.  However, it is manifest that if YHWH’s commandments are a yoke, then there are problems with the Greek NT in Matthew 11:30 where YESHUA said that His yoke (in support of the Torah) was easy and His burden was light. 

 

The Mishnah explains why Deuteronomy 6:4-9 precedes Deuteronomy 11:13-21 in the synagogue liturgy by saying that one should first accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven and after that the yoke of the mitzwot (Brakhot 2:2; Sifra 57b). 

 

Dr David H. Stern argues that like Matthew 11:30, there is nothing in this Mishnah reference suggesting that the law is in any sense a yoke (“Jewish New Testament Commentary,” p. 276). 

 

Stern reports that religious Jews do not consider the Torah a burden or yoke but a joy.  The writer of this study would echo the same findings.  Obeying a mitzwah is a privilege and joy.  Like David so often said in the Psalms, i, too, love, cherish and respect the Torah.  It is no burden to me, but only something of great joy and happiness.   

 

David Stern sees the Acts 15:10 remark as being related to man-made legalism, as perpetuated and taught by the Pharisees. 

 

This writer agrees, but would qualify the idea slightly by stipulating that the reference was made in the context of man-made rituals (traditions of the elders which YESHUA did condemn--Matt 15:2-6), as promoted by “certain” Pharisees--like the Haverim and Shammai Pharisees, to be described in subsequent chapters herein.  

 

 

No Changes 

 

In making these charges against Christendom, this writer is well aware that many English translations of the Word do "seem" to imply or suggest the presence of a "few" changes by The MOST HIGH (as at Hebrews 7:12, on an alleged change in the priesthood and priesthood law). 

 

Too often, a Christian reader of one of these supposed "changes" jumps the gun and assumes that The HIGHEST is making a fundamental change in His position on something.  Actually, such a reasoning is totally contrary to what the Book really says because The LAWGIVER is not A PERSON of contradiction and confusion in any of His statements and edicts, as was noted in earlier comments.  He is always consistent. 

 

What The ELOHIM says, stands for ever.  It has never changed and indeed can never change, despite what Churchianity teaches.  More often, any implied "change" in a particular translation from the Hebrew or Greek, arises because of a misunderstanding by the translator or reader of the text. 

 

 

A Transference 

 

For instance, in the subject of the alleged change in the priesthood law (Heb 7:12), the English word change is from the Greek "metathesis," which actually means "a transposition or a transference from one place to another" (as “Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words,” Thayer’s “Greek English Lexicon” and others all assert). 

 

There is absolutely no allowance in this word for the idea that the "old" law was being terminated and replaced with something new.  Hence, in reality, the writer of Hebrews was not describing an act of "true change" by The HIGHEST in the priesthood and priesthood law. 

 

On the contrary, that law stands for ever and can never be abrogated or destroyed, as was pointed out earlier.  It's just that for believers in The MESSIAH, there is a transference from one priesthood system to an alternate priesthood system--neither of which were being abolished or changed. 

 

Consequently, in many of the supposed changes, there is a clear lack of comprehension due to the inherent problems of making translations from one language into another language.  When one adds in the difficulties associated with the variations in cultural settings and the elapse of long spans of time, it is manifest that making a translation is no easy proposition. 

 

The essence being is that many "believed changes" are not really changes at all, but are rather translation and apprehension problems which can be addressed and dealt with through sufficient effort, and especially so with study of the contextual uses of particular words to see precisely how the Scriptures use them in various contexts. 

 

 

Different Circumstances 

 

Otherwise, there are also a few cases where the Book reflects that a certain act or reaction is prescribed or takes place in a given set of circumstances; while in a different situation or set of circumstances, another act or reaction is called for.  In a sense, that's what we had in Hebrews 7:12, just discussed. 

 

For example, as long as the Temple stood, certain animal sacrifices were legal and proper in certain situations and for certain single acts of sin done in ignorance.  But in terms of the long range problem of dealing with sin, these animal sacrifices were never the answer to anything, nor were they mandated because The SUPREME took pleasure in the slaughter of innocent animals. 

 

From the beginning, The EVERLIVING always had a provision for a future, coming, better sacrifice, as noted earlier, which would remove "all" of the guilt for "all" past sins and grant a sinner forgiveness sufficient for the gift of everlasting life.  This alternative was also a legal and proper means of restitution in the Word, in difference to the sacrificing of animals for single sins done in ignorance, as was the Temple provision. 

 

Clearly, both systems were legitimate and proper per the Word.  Wherefore, when The MESSIAH was born, lived a sinless life and died, His life and death became the authorized alternative for certain sinners in certain situations in contrast to the Temple, priesthood and animal sacrifices, which remained a perfectly viable alternative practice also for certain sinners in certain situations. 

 

When the new system was implemented, there was no abolishment, termination or change at all in either existing system.  Instead, there was only a transference due to a change in the conditions and principals involved which allowed one system to take precedence over the other system. 

 

So while few Christians may realize it, but the truth is that as long as the Temple stood and animal sacrifices were legal for single acts of sin done in ignorance, the apostles and various disciples continued to use this option correctly on occasion for the forty years following The ANOINTED ONE's impalement. 

 

 

NT Proofs 

 

This reality is plainly what one can discover by a careful and thorough study of the New Testament writings--especially Acts, Hebrews and James.  Sometimes, the remarks are discreet (as at Acts 21:20); but otherwise, there are some very overt reflections--such as when Shaul and others went to the Temple and made sacrifices (Acts 21:26-27, as discussed earlier). 

 

Beyond the past and if a new Temple is built tomorrow, animal sacrifices will evidently once more become legal and proper on occasion for certain people in certain situations. 

 

Likewise, in the future coming millennium on earth, animal sacrifices will also become a legitimate basis for reconciliation for certain people in certain acts of sin (Ezek 40-48).  Why?  The why is because those laws were never abolished.  They stand forever!  There is no question about it whatsoever.  The Temple sacrificial system will be a part of the world tomorrow whether anyone likes it or not (per Ezekiel 40-48). 

 

 

Wills Don’t Change After Death 

 

Beyond Shaul’s apparent remarks on the priesthood (Heb 7) and Christendom’s misunderstanding of them, the book of Hebrews also has some very perceptive statements elsewhere.  For example, the writer (evidently Shaul) went on to mention the coming New Covenant (Heb 8-- to be discussed later) and the role of YESHUA as Negotiator and Mediator of that Covenant (Heb 9:15, per the “Amplified Translation”). 

 

As the Hebrews writer observed, a (last) will and testament is valid and takes effect only upon the death of the testator (Heb 9:16-17, per the “Amplified Translation”).  As everyone knows, the last will and testament of a person not only becomes effective at the death of the testator; but moreover, this last will and testament cannot be altered once the testator dies. 

 

All the while that the testator is alive, the testament can normally be changed, but not after death.  The reality of death terminates any chance or possibility of change to the stated testament (whatever it was).  Death fixes and finalizes things which otherwise might be subject to change or modification.  YESHUA’s testament (the New Covenant) was totally fixed at His death (as Orlando Smith of TN pointed out to me years ago).

 

The point of this is that there is just no way that Hebrews 7:12; the entire book of Hebrews; all of Shaul’s various letters; all of the letters and epistles of Kefa, Yakov or Yohanan; or even all of the NT can come along after the death of YESHUA and affect any changes beyond the date of His death. 

 

 

Acts 21:17-27, Revisited 

 

At this place, the reader may wish to recall the earlier presentation on Acts 21:17-27 when Shaul went to Jerusalem around 60 CE or so to see Yakov and the Jerusalem brethren. 

 

As noted previously, Shaul found that the Jerusalem congregation consisted of “thousands” of believers who were “zealous” (or passionate) for the law/Torah (Acts 21:17-27).  Thereupon, with four other believers, he went to the Temple and offered a sacrifice to prove his support for the sacrificial laws and Temple ordinances.  Later, he affirmed that support to Festus (Acts 25:8). 

 

Certainly, these thousands of believers in Jerusalem and even Shaul, himself, never had any idea at all about the law being done away with in YESHUA’s day or later.  This condition must be brought out and acknowledged--because many Christians are cognizant of the reality that there is absolutely nothing in the so-called Gospels which would dare allow or suggest any possibility of changes in any aspect of YHWH’s law. 

 

 

The World of Christian Thinking 

 

In fact, many Christians “painfully” are aware of The MESSIAH’s several remarks about the permanence of the law and the fact that He did not come to destroy it and that greatness is attached to personal obedience of even the least of YAH’s laws (Matt 5:17-19).  Some are even aware of the fact that YESHUA obeyed the law (Torah) perfectly in order to be sinless and A Spotless LAMB suitable for sacrifice. 

 

Fully aware of YESHUA’s extraordinary support of the law, many of the Christian enemies of truth have burned an awful lot of midnight oil and worked overtime in trying to find some pretense or excuse to justify their advocacy of the abolishment of YHWH’s laws that define righteousness. 

 

Since they have run into a brick wall in the first four books of the NT, they have had to turn to other NT writings--principally Shaul’s works, which are quite complex and difficult to understand (and which ignorant and unlearned persons wrestle to their own destruction--II Pet 3:15-16). 

 

Whereas the typical Christian is extremely shallow and ignorant in terms of Scriptural study, Shaul’s complex writings have become the prime vehicle for Christians to use to attack the Torah.  These evil Christians merely claim that some complex and/or difficult “Pauline” verse changes The ELOHIM’s mitzwot in His Torah. 

 

If that reasoning doesn’t set well with their audiences, in view of Acts 21:17-27, cited above, these wretched liars then argue that the law was abolished for so-called “Gentile” believers while it remained in full force for Jews.  Actually, this dual system is too stupid to be discussed.  But it has been suggested by some ignorant Christians. 

 

Thankfully, The MOST HIGH does not operate the way these enemies of truth would have us believe.  He does not have double standards for different believers.  What is sin is sin for all and not just a few.  What was sin for Adam, for Avraham, for Moshe, for David, for Daniel, etc is sin for all of us as well. 

 

Of course, ignorant and uninformed Christians gladly accept such false charges without question or concern in order to justify their own personal rebellion and sin (which they enjoy and will not repent of in this life).  It’s amazing how our deceitful and wicked hearts will lie to us to encourage us on into sin (Jer 17:9). 

 

 

The Tithing Question 

 

Having now established the everlasting permanence of YHWH’s laws and the certainty of no changes in them, it would be well to briefly cite the tithing laws (mentioned earlier) which Christendom likes and preaches about so much.  As just noted, Christianity may preach, teach and declare that the Torah has been done away with in the NT, but she often comes right back with a different tune on the tithing laws. 

 

Interestingly, on this, in the NT, Christendom says that the Torah was totally abolished and done away with to obviously include its weightier matters (as described previously, in an earlier chapter).  The only portion of the Torah which Christianity likes and attempts to retain is the “tithing” law. 

 

Christian preachers particularly like this one because it gives them a steady source of income.  One must always remember that money is the name of the game.  It always has been and always will be under man’s government!  As Churchianity typically sees it, the tithing laws were not abolished along with the abolishment and destruction of all of the other Tanakh laws. 

 

Consequently, Christendom believes that the good Christian must both tithe (ten percent) and give other offerings as well--every Sunday morning.  So Christians regularly pass the collection plates at their worship services (which is a bad procedure, as will be established in later remarks). 

 

By now bringing to mind Christendom’s advocacy of the Old Testament tithing laws, it would be appropriate to look at those laws and see if the Christian Churches are properly teaching them.  And the answer is--no!  Of course, they preach and froth at the mouth about tithing to no end.  But they simply don’t know what they are talking about. 

 

The truth is that while hypocritical Christian preachers scream and holler about the need for their dumb followers to tithe, the tithe can only be paid to its legal recipients, the Levites, in the context of the Temple ordinances, as have been described earlier in this publication. 

 

On this line, it is important to observe that for the last 1,930 years, Jews do not and cannot legally tithe, unless and until a new Temple is built.  However, some Jews are very generous people with good eyes and do give.  Be assured that both the OT and NT advocate and teach generosity in terms of doing good.  It is inconceivable that true believers would be tight and selfish. 

 

 

Christian Hypocrites 

 

Voluntary giving is one thing.  But it is considerably different than mandatory tithing.  Believers should have good eyes, as opposed to evil eyes (as described earlier) and give to “truth.”  But they should give willingly and not because of an unscriptural, illegal tithing system forced on them by greedy Christian Churches and preachers.  The tithing laws are entirely an OT subject.  They only appear in the NT incidentally. 

 

Despite this fact, many Christian preachers want to seize upon Hebrews 7:12, just discussed, as their authority to impose the tithing laws on their uninformed subjects (because money is the name of the Christian game).  As they see it, the Christian priesthood (and preachers) has replaced the OT priesthood.  Therefore, the Christian preachers are to receive the tithes (per this warped thinking). 

 

In a study of the Tanakh, three features stand out in respect to the tithe.  First, its basis was entirely agricultural (Lev 27:30-33; Deut 12:5-26; 14:22-28; 26:12-15; Neh 10:38).  Second, it seems applicable only in the land of Canaan (Deut 12:1, 10).  Finally, it had to be paid precisely to the fleshly descendants of Levi for their work in support of the Tabernacle and Temple, as noted above (Num 18:21-32). 

 

Anyone else (other than the legally entitled Levites) trying to accept or receive the tithe would be taking something which he/she is not entitled to.  The message of the Tanakh is clear.  If anyone (including Christian preachers) comes along and misappropriates the tithe, he/she is a thief! 

 

In terms of Judaism, no Jew has paid, nor has he solicited, tithes since the fall of the Temple.  Yet, as noted, many Jews are quite generous and do give large sums of money to their synagogues and religious and charity projects.  But they do this entirely on the basis of voluntary giving and not because of mandatory tithing requirements. 

 

 

The Worldwide Church of God Illustration 

 

One of the classic demonstrations of Christian confusion regarding change surfaces when one looks at the attitude of the various denominations respecting theological and/or doctrinal changes.  As a general rule, most denominations will not change their primary doctrines at all--irrespective of how wrong and how stupid they may be. 

 

Christian Churches will holler and cry on and on about The ELOHIM changing things in His Word, but they are not about to change their positions on much of anything.  There probably are several good causes for this phenomenon.  One of the best reasons appears to be the fear among church leaders that they will lose members and money if they change their historic positions. 

 

This condition was amply brought out in what happened to the Worldwide Church of God, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong in the 1930s in Eugene, Oregon.  While Armstrong’s Church was a part and parcel of Christianity and thus sharing in any good and bad points possessed by the larger faith, his work did depart from traditional beliefs in some aspects. 

 

Like the mother Sardis Church of God (7th Day) of Stanberry, Missouri, which he was initially linked to, his theology was a step up in many respects from nominal Christianity.  He taught and advocated a Seventh day Sabbath, raised questions about traditional Christian holidays and addressed several other key points which were definite theological improvements. 

 

In 1933, the Sardis Church at Stanberry split into two factions--one to remain at Stanberry and the other established itself at Salem, West Virginia (as will be described in some detail in a later chapter). 

 

Armstrong went with the Salem crowd, which seems to have presented another step up in terms of Stanberry’s positions.  For example, in the early years of the Salem faction, some or many of the Salem churches observed the annual feast days outlined in the Torah. 

 

While Armstrong and some people in both of the Sardis groups accepted the teaching of British Israelism, the churches did not do so formally.  This fact, coupled with Armstrong’s rebellion toward the central authority at Salem and his desires to keep the tithes collected locally, prompted a severance of his connections with them in about 1937. 

 

In any case, by the time of his departure and his organization of the Radio Church of God (which later became the Worldwide Church of God), his theology pretty well was established.  It changed very little until the 1970s when old Herbert began having problems with his wayward son, Garner Ted, who was the Vice President of the group and heir apparent to the President’s mantle. 

 

 

The Big Worldwide Hypocrisy 

 

In those days, in the early 1970s, the Worldwide Church had a policy that if a minister fell into sin and from supposed grace, then he would have to start at the bottom and work up--of course, after repentance.  In other words, he could not expect to come back into a position of authority in the church.  This sounds logical and probably good for a group stressing morality. 

 

It seems that Herbert’s son, Garner Ted, liked to play with airline stewardesses and college coeds--despite having a lovely wife and family at home.  One day, in 1971, Ted got caught and was sent away for a leave of “recuperation.”  Upon returning, he was immediately elevated back to being the number two man.  In view of the church’s position on such a fall, his reinstatement upset a number of the leading ministers. 

 

In this instance, the church law/rule was not changed, it was just ignored by the head man in respect to his own son (allegedly, because the son was intimately aware of the old man’s incest with one of his daughters in the early 1930s in Oregon, and Herbert didn’t want a fight with Ted over family sex scandals). 

 

On returning to leadership in the Worldwide Church, Ted went back to his old life style and was caught again (much like Jimmy Swaggart, who has went through a cycle of sinning, getting caught, repenting and being restored--only to go through the cycle again and again). 

 

So discontent spread and there was a big break in the Worldwide denomination around 1974-75.  Son Ted and several other leaders were disfellowshipped.  But the sly old Herbert was still ruling the church.  He was able to exercise some damage control and put things back together for a while and supposedly keep his same historic doctrines in tact without any major changes in them. 

 

True, the leaders didn’t always obey their rules (as happened with Garner Ted), but they didn’t have to formally change them and be faced with trying to explain the changes to the dumb sheep (as the church members were called). 

 

For example, the church taught that members could not go to the secular medical profession for treatment of diseases.  Yet Herbert, himself, and other leaders reportedly went to human doctors in secret for treatment in lieu of looking for miraculous healings. 

 

Hence, things clicked along and the church grew in membership to something around 100,000--which is quite significant. 

 

 

The Entrance of Change 

 

Herbert’s first wife died, evidently in about 1967.  Being a very elderly man, it would have seemed that having another wife was out of the question. 

 

But a smart Jewish lawyer (evidently not a true racial or religious Jew, but a pretender) moved into church leadership to make money and change Herbert’s direction.  The lawyer had a secretary who was much younger than Herbert.  She was a divorcee and actually part Indian from Oklahoma. 

 

Thanks to the ingenuity of the smart lawyer, this secretary and Herbert often found themselves conveniently together and alone, as he was traveling over the world for various reasons in the 1970s.  So a romance blossomed between the secretary and the old man.  The only problem was that Herbert’s teachings were against any divorce and remarriage, along with obvious limitations in interracial marriages. 

 

For decades, people involved in divorce and remarriage were not allowed into this church unless and until they separated.  In other words, church theology was that marriages (assuming no premarital fornication was involved to allow an annulment) were totally binding.  Once married, the parties could never divorce and remarry for any reason. 

 

How did Herbert resolve the dilemma?  Naturally, he altered his doctrine.  The dumb sheep members accepted the change without a whimper.  With the change, the question of divorce and remarriage reached a ridiculous plateau, as Worldwide bounced around from one position to another (while losing all sense of a definable doctrine). 

 

It ultimately seemed that the Worldwiders no longer had a position on divorce and remarriage (certainly, they had no concept at all of the Scriptural position).  One day, the church leadership would say one thing.  And on another day, they would say something else.  They lost all sense of any direction. 

 

This gross state of theological confusion not only allowed the elderly Armstrong to marry the young divorcee, but it also permitted a number of other ministers to exchange their old hag wives for attractive young women. 

 

Well, in time, Herbert’s second marriage became involved in a scandalous divorce.  Over the years, from this marriage to the divorce, some church members were beginning to realize that something was wrong with the ship that they were on and particularly so when a couple of other minor changes were initiated (like on how to count Pentecost). 

 

 

The Fall-Out of the Changes 

 

Thus, some more members quit disaffected and dissatisfied with the hypocrisy and the change in doctrines.  Herbert, then in his nineties, died in 1986.  The mantle was passed to Joseph Tkach Sr, who also died in the mid 1990s, leaving the charge to his son, Joseph Tkach Jr. 

 

Except for the hypocrisy and the few changes allowed by Herbert, the Worldwide theology remained much like it was when Herbert started the work in Eugene, Oregon, in the 1930s.  But with the demise of Armstrong, the two Tkachs were to go to work on changing almost everything they could in the church, even to the point of altering Sabbath observances. 

 

Quickly, the group became about the same as other Christian Churches with little or no distinction.  Quite naturally, the members couldn’t hack the changes and began quitting in droves. 

 

People leaving Worldwide seem to have went in four primary directions.  First, many of them associated with leading ministers who had quit over the years to form their own groups.  Many of these surfacing churches kept the same, old, traditional, Sardis teachings, as modified by Armstrong, and sometimes going all of the way back to Oregon days. 

 

An appreciable number of people quitting gave up on all sense of religion.  Their faiths (in a man-made work) were shattered and they just couldn’t take it.  Many became atheists and/or agnostics.  Also, quite a few people quitting went back to the old line Christian Churches--like the Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, etc. 

 

Finally, a rare minority of those leaving the Worldwide over the years have become more independent and began intensive Scriptural studies to graduate to better beliefs and faiths.  In other words, some actually took steps up into affiliation with the Sardis Sacred Namers, the Identity movement and/or just being independent students of the Book. 

 

 

Christian Leaders Don’t Like Changes in Their Churches 

 

The point of this is that while Christian Churches themselves are very reluctant to change doctrines and beliefs (knowing the consequences of the loss of members who cannot accept the change), they will accuse The MOST HIGH of frequent changes of anything and everything. 

 

And of most importance, it has to indeed be tragic and sickening to think that the average Christian person will readily accept and believe that The ELOHIM changed things; all the while that they personally cannot accept any changes of doctrines and theology from the churches where they have membership. 

 

This has to be a most fantastic and extraordinary paradox and be completely beyond logical reasoning and understanding.  If Christian people don’t like to change their religious beliefs; why then, are they so willing to accept stupid teachings about changes by YHWH and/or in the Scriptures? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 43--YHWH YESHUA on Change III

 

 

Man’s Laws Revisited 

 

It may seem like another paradox of sorts.  But all the while that Christians carry their “Bibles” around (pretending to live by them), and argue to no end that YHWH’s laws (which actually define and identify righteousness and love) were done away with and abolished (because allegedly they were imperfect, incomplete or just not good); they simultaneously praise, support and glorify human laws. 

 

Yet, the human law makers do make outright mistakes and goofs (or rather, likely always--but this point probably is subject to debate since there is such an obsession by humans/humanoids over their man-made laws). 

 

Perhaps the classic illustration of this happened in 1919 when the US adopted the 18th amendment to the Constitution (which prohibited alcoholic beverages in the US). 

 

This constitutional law was such a grossly stupid act, that in the 1920s, many of the Christian Churches and especially the preachers (who originally pushed it into being) recognized their mistake and became some of the leaders that pushed for its repeal (this happened in 1933 with the 21st amendment to the Constitution). 

 

 

Presidential Laws 

 

On another matter--in the United States, the presidents have illegally seized presidential powers to execute laws by executive order or executive branch regulation with a publication in the Federal Register (these illegally usurped powers will be addressed in some detail in later chapters herein.  Manifestly, per the US Constitution, US presidents lack the power to make law--yet, they do it regularly and often). 

 

However, the fact is that despite the implications of the illegality of these actions, the gullible Americans seem to love and support them fully. 

 

It has become quite a joke, but these illegal presidential laws (accruing from presidential actions in executive orders or regulations) sometimes seem to take an act of Congress to reverse once the president signs off on them and they become US law.  For instance, Clinton issued thousands of these presidential laws in January 2001. 

 

Some people thought that many or most of them were totally unnecessary, stupid and contrary to the US Constitution and the legality of the US existence.  The Congress, in early March 2001, had to pass a law to reverse some of them dealing with the powers of the Health and Safety people to regulate the workplace. 

 

Of course, it goes without saying that every time a new president comes on board in the US White House, he reverses a series of executive orders in place from the prior president and/or establishes a whole series of new presidential laws (this course will be addressed in later chapters). 

 

Moreover, the Congress itself jumps around in a state of confusion by passing laws and reversing, altering and changing laws--as if the members are incompetent and don’t know what they are doing.  Too, the courts do the same thing with judicial laws. 

 

For the benefit of the creation (to certainly include so-called humanity of all kinds, sizes and shapes), this is not the way The CREATOR works.  He never changes His laws, edicts and decisions!  His Words are immutable (as outlined in the former chapters).  

 

 

Yes, US Courts Change Laws 

 

In the United States, laws emanating from the President, Congress and the courts are just the greatest acts and thinking of men, as just discussed.  As the US system developed, the US Supreme Court ultimately had the final say (the last word) on all US laws and far more than even the authority of the Congress to make law. 

 

Because of this supremacy of the court, the Supreme Court has come to produce the “law of the land” --as if the Supreme Court was the final say on all issues of law (actually, as it has worked out, the nine justices of the Supreme Court do have the final say on what is law and what is not law in the United States). 

 

With this prevailing supreme authority on law, the gullible Christian public has come to love and support the Supreme Court laws more so than any other laws emanating in the United States.  Certainly, in the post WWII era, the Supreme Court has come to be the supposed guiding beacon of truth, justice and righteousness among the people of the United States (in its perception of US law). 

 

American Christians are totally devoted to their various man-made laws (and church laws--wherever they originate) and would never entertain the idea that they were done away with or should be done away with.  They love and support them fully. 

 

 

New Thinking on Human Laws 

 

However, to demonstrate the utter hypocrisy and stupidity of man-made laws and human thinking, several remarks will be quoted from Earl Jones’ comments on “Church and State,” appearing in the May-June 1997 “Intelligence Newsletter” (p. 5).  In his article, Jones quoted several most fascinating conclusions on man-made laws. 

 

Jones found that in the late 19th century America, “new thinking” on law began emerging in many of the prestigious American universities. 

 

Specifically, Jones quoted Harvard Law School’s Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell, who said that based on Darwin’s theory of the evolution of man, it stood to reason that man’s laws should likewise be evolving and that judges should guide both the evolution of law and the Constitution.  It was this Langdell, who reportedly introduced the use of the case law approach to judicial decisions in court actions. 

 

By the case law approach, judges (loosely) use history and precedent to determine law and not necessarily what the law actually says or even what the writers intended for the law to say when it was first drafted.  Thus, the words of the Constitution or the thinking, intent and meaning attached to those words by its writers lose their importance. 

 

Based on this reasoning, Jones quoted US Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes (on the bench from 1930 to 1941) who said that “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”  Of course, that’s the way the American judicial system works.  The law is what the judges say it is. 

 

 

The Court Changed the Law 

 

Therefore, school segregation was legal and proper in the US from 1789 to 1954 because the judges said it was so.  Then, in 1954, with Brown versus the Board of Education, the US Supreme Court ruled that school segregation was illegal and contrary to the US Constitution.  Of course, the Supreme Court acted to write “new law,” simply by judicial interpretation. 

 

In 1954, Earl Warren was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  In reference to one of the Constitutional amendments under consideration, he said that it “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”  In other words, never mind what it says, the decision will be made on the basis of contemporary thinking. 

 

Once the new law on racial integration was rendered by the court, precedent and history were established to guide all future actions by all courts in the United States.  Of course, the desegregation change was only the tip of the iceberg because the Supreme Court has come up with all kinds of new laws since 1954 (including Roe versus Wade, which legalized abortions in America). 

 

Jones also quoted US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (appointed in 1902), as saying even earlier that “The justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers always have followed it.  It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end.” 

 

Certainly, this thinking has dominated the Supreme Court since 1933 when Franklin Roosevelt began packing it with liberal judges. 

 

While these just mentioned court decreed changes in the law (coupled with the obvious legislative changes on-going) are the most apparent inconsistencies in man’s laws, there are still more interesting, subtle and far reaching changes constantly going on in the man-made law system which deserve an acknowledgment. 

 

 

Money Not Justice 

 

Sometimes, the state’s attitude and approach toward a given law and its enforcement can change over time with no appreciable change in the law.  An example of this phenomenon surfaced in a 1996 news report which said that billionaire Bill Gates (who owns much of Microsoft) had been caught recently speeding on one of Washington state’s highways. 

 

Of course, Washington has a point system which can require a forfeiture of one’s driver’s license for too many traffic violations.  It seems that Gates already had his maximum allowable violations and would lose his driver’s license with one more conviction.  What did he do?  Naturally, he used some of his money to hire a good lawyer to fight the charge. 

 

The lawyer promptly went to work on discovery procedures, depositions, paper work and other court actions to tie up the traffic citation in a lengthy court process.  In addition to the mountains of paper work, smart lawyers are acutely aware of the loopholes and technicalities that almost always win in a traffic matter in court. 

 

Certainly, Gates could and did hire the best Seattle area lawyer (Gates has been caught several times speeding and he seems to have available an expert lawyer who knows how to win). 

 

As most people know, these traffic rules and huge fines for violations have one primary purpose in modern times.  That purpose is to make money for the state (perhaps years ago, traffic laws were to regulate the highways for safety and to dispense justice, but no longer). 

 

 

The Role of Money 

 

With this paramount focus on getting money from the public, the state and local officials go to all kinds of lengths to pepper the highways and streets with state patrolmen, local police and even sheriffs to write traffic citations--often on a quota basis.  Some persons have correctly perceived that state and local police patrolling the highways can correctly be called “highwaymen.” 

 

Since money is the name of the game (and not the attainment of justice), the state is not about to spend any particular money, time or effort to fight a petty traffic violation in court.  They want to ticket poor people who cannot hire lawyers and who must accept the court’s findings of guilt and cough up the fines without a costly process. 

 

And since this whole system operates to make money from traffic fines and not to impose legal justice and punishment, the state apparently dropped the charge against Gates without even pursuing it.  The lawyer’s fees of perhaps a few thousand dollars or so was peanuts to billionaire Bill Gates.  And in the end, Gates retained his driver’s license while poor people would lose theirs. 

 

People familiar with how traffic enforcement personnel operate (like Christian Identity preacher Rick Strawcutter of Adrian, Michigan) open the door to the possibility that computer data on drivers may have some code system to identify drivers who will go to court and win if a traffic ticket is given them.  In this sense, it might be that traffic cops are alerted to simply leave such people alone. 

 

There is another feature about this situation with Bill Gates.  The very fact that lawyers can go into court and tie the court up in volumes of paperwork and procedures and/or how to exploit the loopholes and technicalities to win means that people with money can receive a different type of justice than those without money.  Money can actually buy off justice. 

 

While the O. J. Simpson acquittal for murder was not entirely due to his money and ability to hire teams of the best (lying) lawyers in the nation, the fact of his money and lawyers helped greatly in perhaps confusing some of the jurors and certainly much of the public at large. 

 

A later chapter in this work will address the primary reason for Simpson’s acquittal--his race and the essentially Black jury!  By the way, Simpson allowed that he was guilty of the murders in a late 1997 interview with a prominent (Esquire?) columnist.  Maybe, in time, he will come out with a money making book and movie admitting it. 

 

 

Attainment of Social Ends 

 

The earlier quoted US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it well by linking his judicial decisions (actually law making powers) in the context of achieving some social end.  Certainly, the courts, ruling executives and legislatures all over America have been doing this very thing for 140 years. 

 

The US government now uses laws to impose social and other changes (in economics, politics, etc) on the collective American people.  Since 1860, American laws dealing with Blacks, alcohol, drugs, women, guns, marriage, sexual activities and on and on have changed many times over--vacillating from one side to the other (as was true with alcohol and drug prohibitions). 

 

Every time a new social force gains strength in the United States, it seems that one of its first acts is to try to get laws passed imposing its ideas on society at large. 

 

Since the rise to power of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and the growth of political liberalism and Christian humanism, the federal government has passed a host of laws which allow it to use money to bring about social, economic, political and other changes in the United States. 

 

For example, if Big Brother wants more Blacks in medical schools, they may give big grants of money to Negro medical students and to the schools that recruit them while doing away with academic standards (which many Negroes have a problem with in their intellectual levels). 

 

This insanity over changing positions from side to side and trying to limit and restrict freedoms simply to try to achieve some social end is a big topic in itself and will be elaborated upon to some length in later chapters.  But for now, it must be acknowledged as one of the shortcomings of man.  Man is constantly changing his concepts of right and wrong. 

 

Certainly, it is bad enough that man is intent on regularly changing his positions on secular matters.  But that’s only part of the problem because man’s stupidity on changes reaches far beyond secular issues to even morality.  Anyone who thinks not had better wake up and realize what is happening in America in the early 21st century. 

 

 

Writing New Laws for Political Reasons  

 

The November 7, 2000, elections caused quite a crisis and uproar in the United States when Democrat Al Gore allegedly won the popular vote while Republican George W. Bush won the electoral vote for president.  Ultimately, the issue settled in on Florida for resolution (which went for Bush). 

 

Not happy with the vote outcome, Gore commenced a whole series of legal actions in Florida to further his own purposes.  Bush tried to oppose Gore with his personal legal actions.  Soon, the whole nation was in turmoil and both major US political parties were going back and forth to court to try to obtain the presidency. 

 

This 2000 election mess will be discussed in some detail in a later chapter.  There is no intent to broach it in this section (which addresses US court actions made to change human laws). 

 

However, in two instances in Florida, an issue did go to the Florida Supreme Court in late 2000 which powerfully illustrates the hypocrisy and evil of man and the US human courts. 

 

Florida for years has had a ballot system which involved punch cards that could be read by a machine.  But in order to be properly read, the card had to be properly punched out for the candidates selected.  Voter instructions were issued in all counties.  And presumably, over the years, the voters had been exposed to this system satisfactorily.  Hence, there were no surprises with the ballots in November 2000. 

 

 

Florida’s Man-made Laws 

 

This writer is not intimately acquainted with Florida’s voting laws.  But they were discussed and covered to some extent in the media and various talk shows as an after-fact of the resulting crisis.  As this writer understands it, there were a couple of laws involved as being pertinent to the issue that went to the Florida Supreme Court. 

 

One law allowed counties to use hand counts of votes instead of using machines in unusual cases--like a natural crisis, catastrophe or other so-called “acts of God.”  State election officials have held that this exception clause pertains in any situation which would make the machine count process impractical--like in a hurricane, if a power failure resulted, if the machines broke down or something else on this order. 

 

Presumably, the nature of the problem would suggest the nature of the solution in terms of manually reading the punch card ballots to determine the intent of the voter.  For example, if the reading machine broke down or damaged some ballots, a manual recount would allow election officials to check the actual ballots and try to determine what the voters intended. 

 

Otherwise, the state law stipulated that all counties were to certify their votes and submit them to the Secretary of State for final tabulation and certification of Florida’s electors within seven days of the vote.  The Secretary of State had discretionary authority (the law used the word “may”) to extend this deadline in the case of an unusual crisis or catastrophe (which would properly allow a delayed hand count). 

 

However, the Gore team was unhappy with the Florida results from two separate machine counts.  They initiated action in three heavily Democrat counties to have a further hand count (with the hope of using hook or crook to come up with more Gore votes--to be later addressed).  Of course, statistically, any non counted votes by the machines would likely be Democrat votes since the counties were heavily Democrat. 

 

The three Democrat counties insisted that they be granted more time to make their hand counts.  But the Republican Secretary of State would not extend the submission dead line because the stated reasons for the extension did not seem to meet the statutory exceptions in Florida law (in her discretionary view). 

 

So Gore’s people went to the Florida Supreme Court (a very political and activist group--where all members were appointed by Democrat governors) and asked for more time. 

 

 

The Hypocrite Court 

 

The court ruled for Gore and authorized the hand counts in the desired Democrat counties and ordered the Secretary of State to change the certification date and extend the statutory deadline for several more days.  In making its “determination,” the Florida Democrat court carefully charged that there was a conflict between two different Florida statutes. 

 

On the one hand, the tallies had to be in within seven days.  On the other hand, hand counts were allowed which could take more time than seven days in some counties.  The court spokesmen and the controlled media were careful to regularly use this excuse for the reason of the court’s decision (while never mentioning the legally proper reasons, which would promote the hand counts). 

 

Repeatedly, the gullible public was told that the Florida laws were contradictory.  As the public was informed, the court had to take action to resolve the conflict.  Thus, the court carefully spun the public about the conflict (the question of spinning news will be addressed in future chapters.  Needless to say, it is a practice used by hypocrites and liars to mesmerize the public and gain support for evil actions). 

 

This decision upset the Bush crowd.  So Bush and his team made several public statements charging that the Democrat court was writing new laws for the state of Florida.  Frankly, from this writer’s assessment (based upon what was said publicly about Florida’s statutes), it would appear that indeed the Florida Supreme Court did write new Florida laws to benefit its Democrat colleague Al Gore. 

 

True, there was a provision for a hand count in the case of certain unusual catastrophes.  But there were no catastrophes, natural disruptions or so-called “acts of God” in 2000 which would allow Democrat counties to ignore and violate the seven-day submission date.  In other words, the Democrat counties involved had no legitimate statutory reason to take more than seven days to report their vote totals. 

 

Effectively, they were trying to find ways to manipulate, alter and change the machine results in an effort to grant Al Gore and the Democrats a Florida victory which had not been won at the polls.  To accomplish this political desire, the three Democrat counties and the Democrat controlled Supreme Court chose to ignore the seven-day limitation and take more time to make their hand recounts (to come up with more Gore votes). 

 

Assuredly, the court did write new law and they did so for very manifest political reasons which had nothing to do with truth and justice.  The judges wrote new judicial law to overturn a Florida statutory law (the deadline).  They did so for their own personal, political reasons and to elect the man of their choice. 

 

 

The US Supreme Court Fall-Out 

 

Incidentally, this issue went to the US Supreme Court.  One of the fall-outs of the discussion centered upon whether the Florida law was actually clear and adequate to address the question at hand.  Effectively, the Gore argument was that “no” since the laws allegedly were contradictory.  In that case, the Gore team argued that the Florida court had a right to come in and effectively make judicial law (with a new deadline). 

 

In other words, this thinking crystallizes as being that if there is no law or if the law isn’t clear, a court has a right to make law.  This same argument has persisted in many US courts for ages (particularly in the US Supreme Court).  If there is no law, if the law is obscured or supposedly contradictory, or if some party is simply unhappy with the law, then the issue can go to court and the court can arbitrarily make new judicial law. 

 

Tragically, this was not the intent under the US Constitution--at least as far as the US Supreme Court.  As will be covered in later chapters, the US Constitution places all legislative (law making) authority with the Congress.  The court’s primary purpose was to interpret those laws in the vein of the Constitution.  But somehow, the US Supreme Court and others began the process of making laws to satisfy various other objectives. 

 

There was another fall-out of the Florida conflict.  Section 1 of Article II of the US Constitution says-- “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors...”  Manifestly, in the Florida case, there was clearly no justification for the Florida court to attempt to make judicial law which would set aside the clear statements of the US Constitution and Florida’s legislative laws. 

 

Finally, one more relevant issue was that there was a US law passed in the late 19th century which prohibited any state from changing voting laws or rules after the voters voted in an election.  This law makes sense in that it is inconceivable that a legislature or court would come in and try to change the applicable voting law after the voting ended. 

 

In any case, the US Supreme Court tried to make sense of the Florida Supreme Court ruling.  But per the court record of the Florida hearing, the US Supreme Court said that it could not understand the basis for the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to overrule the acts of the Florida legislature (which were reportedly in harmony with the US Constitution and law). 

 

Accordingly, the US Supreme Court vacated and set aside the Florida action for the time being and send the matter back to Florida for more information on the Florida decision and why it was made as it was.  This action effectively deferred a final settlement of the overall case (and caused more confusion). 

 

 

But No Standards 

 

In the meantime, the Florida courts were also hearing other Gore initiated actions to try to get more hand counts.  Another action, in early December 2000, once more went to the Florida Supreme Court asking again for a hand recount of the questionable ballots not counted by machines.  Once more, the court (in a split decision) ruled for Gore and ordered hand counts of these defective ballots throughout the entire state. 

 

This time, the court went beyond its previous complaint about conflicting laws by citing some vague legal reference that everybody is entitled to vote.  In the sense that some people failed to punch their ballots correctly (for whatever reason), they were, per the court, denied their privilege of voting. 

 

However, in offering this decision of the right to vote, the Florida Supreme Court did not establish any standards which could be followed by the various hand counters scattered throughout the state to determine what constitutes a vote.  In the former and later decisions, the Florida Supreme Court never addressed that issue. 

 

Therefore, it left the question of what constitutes a vote up to differing, diverse, subordinate county election boards who could apply their own rules or discretion about what might constitute a vote in their counties (obviously, anyone above the idiot level should understand that this is a very irresponsible, incompetent and stupid decision on how to make a vote count statewide). 

 

 

The Florida Problem 

 

The Florida problem was that some of the ballots were not properly punched out for president or other offices (which therefore did not allow them to be properly counted by the machines). 

 

Sometimes, a chad on the ballots was only partially detached, and sometimes they only had an indent, dimple, pimple or smear--leaving confusion on whether the voter was incompetent and did not punch the chad out or whether the voter changed his mind and decided to not vote for president (which is a very plausible scenario). 

 

In the first decision, the three counties made up their own differing rules on what would constitute a vote.  In the second decision, a circuit judge in Tallahassee likewise failed to establish adequate standards.  Thus, the issue was largely a discretionary question.  In all cases, it seemed to boil down to some effort to “divine” or speculate upon the intent of the voter, never knowing for sure what the voter wanted. 

 

Obviously, the machine simplified this process by simply not counting the ballots which were not punched properly (per the voter instructions).  Of course, if there was something wrong with the machine or if a machine messed up some ballots, then maybe there would be some justification to come back later and try to determine the intent of the voter. 

 

Otherwise, by using the machines in a machine count operation, the assumption would have to be that the voter did not intend to vote for president.  This was the reality which Gore wanted to avoid.  He wanted to try to lasso all of those unclear ballots in largely Democrat counties (which statistically would be primarily for him) and “divine” those ballots and make them register a vote for him. 

 

 

Still More Hypocrisy 

 

Moreover, this last Florida court action effectively overruled its own previously established deadline by creating a new deadline. 

 

This made three deadlines--the original established in Florida law, the second one established by the first Florida Supreme Court ruling and the third one effectively came in the Florida Supreme Court’s last decision (the idea was that the Florida court would keep ordering vote counts and changing the deadline until Gore was the winner.  Once Gore was the winner, the whole subject could be dropped). 

 

In this last order, a number of people (including some justices of the US Supreme Court, like Sandra Day O’Connor) claimed that the Florida Supreme Court failed to address the previously stated complaints of the US Supreme Court.  In other words, the Florida court had just ignored the former remand and acted again without clarification of its authority or what it was attempting to do. 

 

Anyway, the issue went once more to the US Supreme Court which issued a new stay ordering the recount stopped (in a split decision).  The decision came down effectively setting aside the Florida Supreme Court’s decision because of the failure of the Florida court to establish statewide, consistent standards of what constitutes a vote. 

 

The case was remanded back to Florida (which could have followed up to provide standards for the desired statewide hand recount).  So it would seem that the issue died there.  The crisis that resulted in the US elections in 2000 will be assessed in some detail in a subsequent chapter. 

 

 

A US Problem 

 

In mentioning the Florida mess, the point must be made that similar vote count machines are also used elsewhere throughout the United States.  In other words, the conflict in Florida could have played out in many other US states as well.  The reason why Florida came to be the focus was because Gore needed to win Florida in order to win the election.  So he focused his court actions upon Florida. 

 

 

The New Jersey Sickness 

 

The state of New Jersey offers still one more example of US problems.  For some strange reason (surely relating to demographics), the state of New Jersey has been plagued for years with some of the most vile and corrupt politicians in America.  The stupidity of the New Jersey voters to elect and re-elect crooks of the most profound kind continues to stagger the thinking mind. 

 

The purchase in 2000 of a US Senatorial seat in New Jersey by a super rich fat cat named Jon Corzine (Democrat) will be addressed in a later chapter.  But along with this extraordinary case, another situation arose in New Jersey politics in 2002 which likewise blows the mind of a thinking man. 

 

For years, a crook named Robert Torricelli represented the state of New Jersey in the US Senate (as a Democrat).  Then, in early 2002, revelations came forth that he was a crook and had accepted bribes and/or pay-offs from certain people.  The US Senate did admonish him for ethics violations, but took no action to expel him (because he was a politically correct crook of the major parties and not an outsider). 

 

In the fall of 2002, Torricelli thought that he could fool the voters one more time.  But as the campaign wore on, it became obvious that the New Jersey voters were fed up with the crook Torricelli, who was fast plummeting in the polls.  By Sep 30th, the Democrat party was in a state of shock with a realization that a relatively unknown Republican named Doug Forrester would soundly defeat RT. 

 

 

The Democrats Maneuver 

 

Accordingly, to try to save the Democrat controlled Senate, Torricelli announced that day that the Democrat party would replace him on the NJ ballot with former Senator Frank Lautenberg, a 78-year old man who retired some time ago (Oct 11, 2002, “The Week,” p. 5). 

 

The only trouble with this scheme was that the NJ state election law said that political party candidates had to be named by their parties at least 51 days in advance of the election (to allow voting preparations to be made and ballots prepared).  With Torricelli’s step down, the election was only 36 days away. 

 

The Democrat controlled New Jersey officials decided to proceed with substituting Lautenberg for Robert Torricelli (one could bank on it that no one in the state of New Jersey would have taken this position if a small, insignificant third party was involved in trying to substitute a candidate at the last moment). 

 

The Republicans challenged the change and the case went to the NJ Supreme Court (another leftist Democrat court) which ruled for the Democrats that Torricelli could be replaced.  As it turned out the ballots had already been prepared and some absentee voters had already voted.  The NJ law was so clear.  It could not be misunderstood.  Yet, the NJ court wrote new law. 

 

Immediately, Lautenberg held a political rally and praised the NJ court for supporting the constitution and the right of both “major” political parties to have a candidate on the ballot for Senate. 

 

The essence of this ruling is that states can have election dead-lines for third parties and probably either of the major two parties (if that party is out of power at a given moment in time).  But if a ruling party (in power) wants to violate and ignore those laws and deadlines (because its own candidates are running badly in the polls), then the court of the ruling party can write new laws for the benefit of its candidates. 

 

Of course, courts are supposed to interpret existing laws and rule on their constitutionality.  Courts are not supposed to engage in the practice of writing new laws to support their political objectives and wishes (circumventing legislatures which are charged with passing laws). 

 

But in today’s America, the courts now willingly write and issue new laws.  Yes, change and confusion dominate man’s laws! 

 

 

An Independent Judiciary? 

 

Interestingly, in the Florida conflict and stupidity in changing laws (as described above), Gore’s campaign chairman William Daily referred to the Florida judiciary throughout the confrontation as the “independent judiciary” (what a joke!).  Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.  US court justices routinely are politicians and are generally appointed by politicians (from county level to the US Supreme Court). 

 

They have political party affiliations, biases and loyalties which do affect their decisions!  This same condition prevails in general in all US courts--to even include the US Supreme Court.  Man-made courts are very political and can easily render unfair and bad decisions--based simply on politics. 

 

Moreover, the national controlled media got into the act by implying or suggesting that the five conservative members of the US Supreme Court someway exhibited partisan politics in their decision in support of Bush.  It is important to note that the national controlled media never accused the Democrat Florida Supreme Court of partisanship.  The bias and dishonesty of the US media will be addressed in later chapters. 

 

Obviously, Scriptural laws and judges don’t operate the way of humans/humanoids.  For our benefit, YHWH’s laws never change and cannot be changed by limited men!  More importantly, YHWH and His judges are not politicians.  They are honest persons of integrity, honor and character (who would never abuse or misuse the Torah for their personal benefit or pleasure). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 44--YHWH YESHUA on Change IV

 

 

Modern Political Thinking 

 

As early as the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, US politicians began working overtime to change the US Constitution.  And they have been succeeding. 

 

Therefore, by the 1960s, the liberal John F. Kennedy said that the US Constitution was a “living document,” which meant that it needed to be brought into line with the modern US culture of his day (Mar-Apr 2001 “Intelligence Newsletter,” p. 3). 

 

In one of the fall-outs of the 2000 presidential campaign, Vice President Al Gore said, “In my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history” (Oct 30, 2000, “Spotlight,” p. 12).  Earlier, President Bill Clinton spoke to a national assembly of queers and sexual perverts in Washington during November 1997.  He said that “morality law is evolving.” 

 

Yes, Clinton spoke some true words (which was and is a rarity for Clinton).  Both law and morality are changing in modern America.  There was a day when queers were called queers and sodomites and were prosecuted by law.  No more!  Now, they are called gays and they have “gay rights” --which are enforceable by man-made laws.  Yes, man constantly changes his own concepts about right and wrong. 

 

One more classic illustration from our time has to be the new hate laws (actually thought control laws) that have been emerging in America over the last several years.  This change dictates higher penalties for various criminal activities on the premise that the act was motivated over certain thoughts (usually related to race and political correctness).  This thinking will also be discussed at some length in later chapters. 

 

Incidentally, the Oct 30, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 12) summed up the US situation by saying:  “The Constitution is the fundamental law for the federal government.  If that government’s own courts can arbitrarily change its meaning, the government becomes a law unto itself--that is, a lawless government, a government of men, not of law.”  

 

Alexander Hamilton said that one of the advantages of our Constitution over the British situation is that it would be made by the people and therefore “unalterable by the government.”  As it has turned out, Hamilton manifestly had it wrong. 

 

 

Change Dominates Man’s Laws 

 

The point of these findings is that human laws (which Christians fully support, advocate and teach) are filled with the limitations and shortcomings of man.  It is no big deal when the US Supreme Court or Congress completely reverses itself and declares entirely “new thinking” to guide all of the United States. 

 

Most people never have gotten excited over the fact that slavery was legal and laws existed right and left to perpetuate it for years.  However, in later years, laws were passed to abolish it, but allowed segregation of the races to prevail in marriages, schools, social relations, etc. 

 

Then, in still later years, all of these laws were changed to actually promote and encourage racial miscegenation, integration and amalgamation.  And while addressing these man-made laws in the modern United States and Western civilization, it must be pointed out that America, and indeed the West, is supposed to be a Christian nation. 

 

Yes, it is Christian America and the Christian West which have promoted, allowed and perpetuated the constant changes and confusion in secular man-made laws.  Thus, the reality of changes in man’s laws must be laid at the doorsteps of Christianity. 

 

It is very plausible that Christian attitudes and thinking, as visible and in evidence in its laws and in its constant changing of laws, have perhaps influenced and motivated Christian thinking to believe that YHWH’s laws are like Christian men’s laws--ever changing in a state of evolution, confusion, flux and uncertainty. 

 

 

YHWH’s Laws Never Change 

 

In terms of The ELOHIM’s Torah, things don’t work the way Christians teach at all.  YAH’s laws mean what they say (as given) and they cannot be, nor have they ever been changed over the 6,000 years history of Adam.  They have always been and always will remain consistently the same. 

 

What was sin for Adam, for Noah, for Avraham, for David, for Yoshiyahu, for YESHUA, for Kefa and so forth is sin for you and me today because YHWH is immutable and His laws are immutable. 

 

All of us from Adam on to Noah, on to Yehoshua, on to Yirmeyahu, on to Yohanan and on to you and me will be judged precisely the same way by the same standards of truth. 

 

If The MOST HIGH’s laws did change, as Christians allege, is it not plausible that His promises (of salvation, of healing, etc) could also have changed or may change in the future?  If He can change (as limited, little humans change), how can a sane person believe anything that He has said? 

 

Certainly, if The ELOHIM’s attitude toward law and justice was what man’s attitudes have been for 6,000 years, then absolute pandemonium and confusion would have prevailed throughout the Scriptures, and of course, history.  When reading something in the Book, one could never be sure that it hadn’t changed if The MOST HIGH did change the way Christendom teaches. 

 

How blessed are we limited little human beings in that The MOST HIGH is not a man and does not think and act like men have done in terms of law and justice (Num 23:19).  Truly, He is immutable and changes not! 

 

It is limited, little, inadequate and confused men who regularly and frequently change their positions over and over on things--not The ELOHIM. 

 

 

Human Laws on the “God” Level 

 

The previously quoted Stephen E. Jones pointed out that human laws are religious in origin, and that the source of such laws (the law maker) becomes the “god” of a society.  Jones’ words bring up some much earlier comments along the same line from people out of history. 

 

The Greek philosopher Parmenides (c515 BCE) was one of the earliest persons who produced such ideas when he advocated the worship of the state and the state’s laws (on a “god” level).  In many later years, the German philosopher George Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel (1770-1831), a follower of Parmenides, likewise looked upon the state and the state made laws as being on the “god” and worship levels. 

 

Hegel gained some fame as the father of the “Hegelian Dialectic” (which will be defined and applied in modern interpretations in subsequent chapters herein) and one of the important mentors of Karl Marx and his theory of “Dialectic Materialism” (“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,” p. 371). 

 

The thinking of both Parmenides and Hegel will be addressed in some detail in later chapters on Greek sun worship.  Hence, there is no need to focus upon it now.  However, their theories on the elevation of man-made laws to the “god” and “worship” plane needs some attention in this presentation on change. 

 

Manifestly, human laws do become accepted and followed on a “god” or “worship” level--as concluded by Parmenides, Hegel and Stephen E. Jones.  There is no way to avoid this reality (and it tragically applies 100% in the Christian Western nations today, as will be conclusively proven in the succeeding chapters). 

 

 

The Paradox 

 

But there is another very sad feature of this pathetic condition in both ancient history as well as in the Christian West for the last 2,000 years.  A strange paradox arises on this theme because the very people who “hate and oppose” YHWH’s Torah/law (which never changes) are the precise same people who “love, worship, adore and pay homage” to man-made laws (which are ever changing). 

 

This is confusion and cannot possibly come from The MOST HIGH or His Word.  After all, He is immutable (as pointed out earlier) and cannot be the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33). 

 

Is it conceivable that the exact people who accept and obey human laws on a “god” platform (that are ever changing or evolving, as Slick Clinton and Al Gore have both pronounced and advocated) are the same persons who most vigorously, actively and passionately oppose YHWH’s mitzwot (in the Torah)?  The answer here is--yes! 

 

Adamic people for 6,000 years have precisely fit this mold. 

 

This same reality has furthermore regularly and typically surfaced for the last 2,000 years in worldly Christianity.  The generic Christian passionately hates the Torah and works against it with diligence, dedication, purpose and resolve (just as all collective men have so done throughout history). 

 

Yet, these same hypocrite individuals will pass, accept, promote, brag on and glorify human laws (as produced by legislatures, presidents and courts).  This paradox is absolutely unfathomable from the standpoint of people who supposedly are religious and obey the Scriptures (like Christians). 

 

Yes, humans love their ever changing human laws, but hate and work against the perfect, immutable laws of The CREATOR. 

 

 

The Christian Identity Confusion 

 

Having described in detail the obsession of modern Christians with the idea of changes in law, there is a need to digress briefly into some of the theories and beliefs floating around in the contemporary Christian Identity motion.  Some of the Christian Identity beliefs are so stupid and asinine that it is probably an absolute waste of time to even mention them. 

 

But they do entrap gullible people into erroneous and Satanic teachings.  So it will be well to make reference to them.  A former chapter mentioned the stupidity of Christian Identity people (like Richard) in trying to make out that the Septuagint was the inspired Scriptures in the days of the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

Apparently, Richard is not the lone ranger on this confusion.  Other Christian Identity big shots seem to share some of his ridiculous beliefs. 

 

 

Earl F. Jones, Revisited 

 

For example, the Mar-Apr 2001 “Intelligence Newsletter” had a write-up by editor and so-called “pastor” Earl F. Jones (previously quoted) on “Why Modern So-Called Conservatives Never Win.” 

 

Jones’ effort attempted to cover some of the problems faced by modern “Christian Conservatives,” to presumably include people like Jones and others in the current Christian Identity movement. 

 

One of the interesting things alluded to by Jones was the use of the Septuagint by conservative Israelites over the years in their efforts to preserve “the Laws of God,” as Jones characterized it (p. 2 of his newsletter). 

 

Jones said at the “time of Jesus,” there was a battle raging between these conservative Israelites and the “Talmudic Pharisees,” who were attempting to destroy the old way (presumably, as chartered by the conservative Israelites). 

 

Earl argued that the Pharisees believed that the Old Testament was a “dead letter” because it was not a “living document” (which President John F. Kennedy mentioned, as noted above). 

 

In going on, Jones contented that this is the same Talmudic principle which existed since its beginning in the Babylonian exile.  As Jones outlined it, conservative Israel and conservative Christians have been in a death battle with the Talmudic Pharisees--presumably over the OT laws (which Christians apparently can find in the Septuagint, but evidently have a problem with in the Hebrew Tanakh). 

 

 

More Than Jones 

 

This whole discussion was probably not unique or singular with Jones.  Apparently, vast numbers of Christian Identity types believe about the same nonsense.  In effect, they are completely lost as to the real world in the question of change in YHWH’s laws (the Torah). 

 

If the truth is known, the likely reason for this Christian Identity confusion is because of its incredible hatred for something Jewish. 

 

The Christian Identity people are obsessed with absolute hatred for anything that can relate to Judaism (not necessarily to Jews, per se, although there is some strong Jew hatred among some Identity types), as will be covered in some detail in subsequent chapters. 

 

 

Gross Hypocrites 

 

Succeeding chapters herein will also discuss the beliefs of the Pharisees, modern Jews and the Talmud.  There is no intent to try to broach these lengthy subjects at this time on change. 

 

Suffice to say, anyone--who tries to claim that the Pharisees (or their successors in modern Orthodox Judaism) and/or the Hebrew Tanakh have fueled the current Christian obsession with Scriptural change--has lost touch with reality. 

 

There might be Scriptural morons and fools at the imbecile level who believe this trite being produced by Jones and others like him.  There is also a gross revelation of hypocrisy in these ridiculous beliefs of Jones (and his Identity colleagues). 

 

Christians claim to oppose (actually hate) Jews and Judaism because of their so-called legalism (in adhering to the laws in the Torah).  Jones ignored this real world and instead tried to support the generic law (evidently, as depicted in the Septuagint)--all the while that he attacked Judaism, the Jews, the Pharisees and the Talmud for the real Christian efforts to change the Scriptural laws. 

 

Obviously, Jones and his friends know nothing whatsoever about Christian history.  Christianity has always opposed the Scriptural laws in the Torah. 

 

Not only does Christendom hate those laws, but most Christians hate and oppose the Pharisees, Judaism and the Talmud--just as religiously as does Jones and his compatriots.  It is totally ludicrous to blame the Jews for the prevailing Christian attitudes on the Torah. 

 

 

Christian Lies 

 

So, if YHWH does not change and alter his words and pronouncements, where then and what is the source of the Scriptural changes--as perpetuated, preached, taught, advocated and advertised by Churchianity these past 1,960 years or so? 

 

If the Pharisee Jews cannot be blamed for this incredible Christian obsession with change in Scriptural laws/the Torah (as is desired by the Christian Identity movement and its spokesmen, such as Earl F. Jones), what is it that operates behind the scenes to popularize such an incredibly false ideological belief? 

 

Why is it that Christendom constantly tells her ignorant followers that The SOVEREIGN changes; when, in fact, He says He does not change?  Well, the answer to this enigma is that there is a Satanic system here on this earth which is behind this theory of pronounced confusion and change (Dan 2:21; 7:25; Rom 1:25).  This is the same source which inspires the human laws that are contrary to YHWH’s law/Torah. 

 

In short, if you think your CREATOR is a chameleon of change, contradiction, confusion and indecisiveness, and if you think Christendom's hair brained and ridiculous ideas about the presence of "two" distinctively different deities in the Word (one good and one bad) have merit, then you've got some real problems in trying to ever understand and appreciate what the Book actually says. 

 

The truth is that the Scriptures are a record of one and only ONE MOST HIGH, Who is the same in both the Old and New Testaments; ONE Who is the same now and forever; and ONE Who does not change. 

 

It is Satan, Babylon, Christianity, and yes, limited human beings who are constant and frequent agencies of contradiction, confusion and change (Num 23:19; Ps 116:11; Rom 3:4). 

 

 

Genuine Christian Confusion 

 

Probably, it would be well to pause here momentarily and note that if Babylon means confusion, as it does (per Young's "Analytical Concordance"), what then does Christianity mean with its 32,000 separate sects, divisions and denominations (the 32,000, per Ian Punnett on Coast to Coast radio program, Jan 31, 2001), and their thousands upon thousands of varying and conflicting theological interpretations? 

 

When one adds in the total pandemonium and confusion in the Christian Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, an objective, sane, student of truth must stop and ask what possible purpose could this mess serve (to The MOST HIGH or indeed anyone) with its total quandary of flux, argument, confusion and uncertainty--which is impossible to understand and comprehend. 

 

So, if Babylon (actually Babylonian sun worship, as will be proven in later chapters) equates to confusion, Christianity must equate to Babylon. 

 

Surely, of all of the world's known, recognized and studied religions, Christendom must be a most definite Pandora's box of contradictions and conflicts.  It must be near or at the top of the heap in chaos, turmoil, strife and confusion.  Hence, it must link in some fashion to Babylon. 

 

With this background, it is readily apparent that there are some fundamental problems in Christianity.  There are Christian ideas, theories and suppositions which are dogmatically contrary to Scriptural teachings and messages.  This fact impacts grossly upon the subject at hand, as cited earlier and as will be seen in succeeding chapters. 

 

 

YHWH Does Not Change! 

 

The gist from all of this is that limited, little, inadequate and lacking men must be careful about accusing The SOVEREIGN of changes in His position when, in fact, there could be, at best, only a change in circumstances.  Or perhaps, more often, the translators have conveyed improperly the involved Hebrew and Greek words. 

 

Thus, the Book declares repeatedly that when The SOVEREIGN speaks, He makes His Word good (Num 23:19; I Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4); His words are not idle, vain and void, but they will be accomplished (Isa 44:26, 45:23, 55:11); He will not alter His words which go forth from His lips (Ps 89:34); His decision and gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29, Ferrar Fenton Translation); and He is not the author of confusion--to include confusion over change (I Cor 14:33). 

 

Importantly, there is absolutely no shadow of turning in The MOST HIGH's character (Jas 1:17).  After all, in the person of The MESSIAH, He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8).  Categorically, He changes not (Mal 3:6). 

 

The SOVEREIGN is absolutely consistent.  What He says in one place in His Word, He also says in other places. 

 

Now, for heathen Christianity, which loves, adores, cherishes and lusts after the idea of change, the truth is that The HIGHEST does not change and His Word cannot be broken (Jo 10:35).  Truly, He is immutable! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 45--Do Things Matter?

 

 

The Question 

 

Do things really matter?  Or put another way, does reality really count?  As will be demonstrated in this and the following chapters, things do matter and reality does count.  Yes, things (reality) do matter! 

 

 

Britain and South Africa 

 

Some remarks on British royalty and the demographic and economic situations in South Africa will be addressed in chapters hereafter.  Without unnecessarily repeating those presentations, some words will now be shared on a marvelous revelation from history on whether things matter or not. 

 

Victoria became queen in 1837.  The fat cat bankers in Britain and Victoria’s ministers went to work diligently to create the vast British empire in the 19th century.  With the death of Victoria in 1901, the sun did not set on the British empire.  Literally, it stretched around the world. 

 

One of the most interesting and profoundly important Prime Ministers, under Victoria, was Benjamin Disraeli, a Christian Jew, who had enormous perception about reality (as will be proven in a later chapter). 

 

Disraeli first became Prime Minister in Feb 1868 with the Conservative party.  He lost power to the Liberal party in December of that year when William Ewart Gladstone took over.  But Gladstone had his troubles.  So the Conservative party came back with Disraeli in Feb 1874. 

 

In furtherance of the British empire and perhaps because Britain began to have some understanding about the great wealth in South Africa, the British leaders and their plutocratic masters looked with envy upon much of South Africa, then largely controlled by the Boers or Afrikaners (Dutch people and French Huguenots). 

 

 

British Lust 

 

While Britain possessed the Cape Colony; the Orange Fee State, Transvaal and Natal were inhabited and controlled by the Boers.  The British looked with lust in their hearts upon this Boer land.  Victoria, Disraeli and the British plutocrats decided that they would proceed to steal all of it. 

 

Many history books suggest that the vast gold and diamond fields in these old Boer lands were not really discovered and/or developed until the late 1880s. 

 

However, there are some reasons to suggest that some persons had some perception of the wealth there to spur the British government on in deciding to take the lands and make them become a part of the British empire. 

 

 

The Intrigue in 1877 

 

The problem that the British planners faced was how to steal the land and avoid having to fight a prolonged war with the Boers (actually, as things turned out, Britain and the Boers did eventually fight a war in 1899 to 1902 over these lands, but Britain made other efforts in the 1870s to avoid a war). 

 

The method chosen by Britain was described by Dr Stan Monteith in his video on “9/11 Contrived.”  Monteith says that the British came up with a method of stealing the Boer lands by creating a common enemy which would have to be opposed by both Britain and the Boers. 

 

In other words, if my enemy and me carry a common enemy, we can be friends of sorts in opposition to our common enemy. 

 

Thus, in 1877, Britain created a common enemy which united the British and the Boers and allowed Britain to successfully steal the Boer lands.  The common enemy chosen was the Zulu Blacks, then living in Zululand, across the Buffalo River from Natal. 

 

In his video, Dr Monteith says that the Zulus had been at peace with the Whites for thirty years.  Manifestly, they did not want a war with the more militarily advanced Whites.  But Britain made some impossible demands upon the Zulus, which laid the groundwork for the British-Zulu war of 1878-1879. 

 

 

The Zulu Character 

 

As a part of the movement of Blacks from Central Africa South in the 16th century, the Zulus (a Bantu people) came to inhabit the territory which came to be called Zululand.  In the years 1810 to 1828, the famous Zulu King Shaka (or Chaka) united the tribe and turned it into a fierce warrior nation. 

 

Anyone familiar with American history and the history of Black people in America must be struck with the reality that American Blacks historically never made good military people. 

 

From the time of the US Civil War on, and until the end of WWII, the American military leaders understood and believed that the Blacks were no good for anything, except being cooks and laborers (many were truck drivers in WWII). 

 

The problem with the Blacks was that anytime a Black military unit was committed to battle, the Blacks would drop their guns and run (this reality prompted President Truman in 1950-1951 to integrate the US Army in a belief that Black soldiers would stand and fight if mixed and interspersed with Whites who would stand and fight). 

 

Even today, in Black Africa, Black military forces can only successfully fight other Black forces.  They are largely useless against Whites.  This interesting little piece of truth explains why a European army will become the military backbone of the age ending Beast world government (as will be explained in subsequent chapters herein). 

 

But somehow, Shaka instilled a sense of fierceness, war and violence into his Zulu warriors.  For sure, they were manifestly different people than other Black Africans in terms of war and the military. 

 

While it is unclear what all has motivated the Zulus over the years, Dr Monteith mentions an interesting fact about them and their culture which probably affected their ability to fight. 

 

Monteith says that a Zulu warrior could not have a woman to bed down with until he had washed his spear in the blood of his enemy.  Surely, this made many of the Zulu men anxious for a fight in order to kill their enemies. 

 

 

The Conflict of 1878-1879

 

So, in 1877, Britain annexed the Boer lands and soon made demands on the Zulu nation which the Zulu King Cetywayo (he was made king in 1872) could not accept.  War then came in 1878 and 1879.  With the war, the British and the Boers were united against the common enemy and threat. 

 

Accordingly, in January 1879, the British Commander-In-Chief in South Africa, a General named Lord Chelmsford, organized a 5,000 man army and proceeded to cross the Buffalo River and march into Zululand, ostensibly to seek out and destroy the Zulu army. 

 

In crossing the Buffalo, Lord Chelmsford left a company of foot (infantry) and a hospital unit with some sick and/or injured British soldiers at a former Swedish missionary station on the Buffalo called Rorke’s Drift.  The rest of the 5,000-man British army proceeded on into the interior of Zululand. 

 

 

The Battle of Isandhlwana 

 

In his march into Zululand, the British Lord was about as arrogant and foolish as was General George Armstrong Custer at the battle of the Little Big Horn in June 1876 when thousands of Indian warriors annihilated Custer and some 263 of his men (this battle and Custer’s arrogance and foolishness in dividing his forces will be addressed in later commentary herein). 

 

Anyway, the British Commander decided to divide his army and leap frog across Zululand.  Besides the company and hospital left at Rorke’s Drift, Chelmsford left a regiment of foot (of about 1,000 men) at a place called Isandhlwana.  Quickly, this force was reinforced by a horse-mounted provisional regiment of local volunteers--made up of some Whites (mainly Boers), and Blacks. 

 

The number of men in the provisional force is unclear to this writer as different historians have used different numbers for the men involved.  Dr Monteith suggested that it had 850 men, but other sources have put the number at about 500 or 600.  For sure, there were at least 500 men (and evidently, many or most of them were Blacks). 

 

With the main British force moving on into Zululand (some eight miles up the valley), this 1,500 or more men were left at Isandhlwana.  There, at midday on Jan 22, 1879, they were attacked by a superior Zulu force of possibly 24,000 or so warriors.  The Zulus annihilated the Whites and some number of the mounted men in the provisional force. 

 

Following the fight, Lord Chelmsford reportedly put the number of deaths at 1,200 in an ultimate message to London. 

 

This means that about 200 or so of the provisional soldiers in the local mounted militia died at Isandhlwana, while the rest of the mounted militiamen (manifestly Blacks, as only about 50 Whites survived) deserted the battlefield and fled the area (probably, most of them fled South, across the Buffalo to find safety in Natal). 

 

 

The Battle at Rorke’s Drift 

 

On the afternoon and evening of Jan 22, 1879, a Zulu force of about 5,000 warriors attacked the missionary station at Rorke’s Drift (as described in a home video called “Zulu”). 

 

As noted above, Rorke’s Drift was manned by a company of foot and a hospital unit with 104 White men available for duty, and some 36 sick and injured men in the hospital.  There was also some 14 Black native laborers (but the Blacks quickly fled the area before the fight started). 

 

The ensuing battle continued that day and into the next day.  Ultimately, the British held the station against the overwhelming surge of Black warriors.  Hundreds and perhaps thousands of Blacks were killed.  When the fight ended, 87 White British solders survived (meaning a loss of some 53 White soldiers). 

 

In the movie on “Zulu,” well known actor Richard Burton narrated the after-effects of the battle.  He noted that in a period of 100 years (evidently from c1863, when the Victoria Cross was first established, until 1963, when the movie “Zulu” was made), there was a total of 1,344 awards of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most esteemed medal awarded to soldiers in the British military. 

 

Burton then pointed out that at the battle of Rorke’s Drift, eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded.  This military achievement at Rorke’s Drift was extraordinary. 

 

 

But Things Do Matter 

 

Before commencement of the battle at Rorke’s Drift, the “Zulu” movie offered a discussion between some of the soldiers who were patients in the hospital. 

 

While the movie was an almost documentary of the battle and was extremely realistic and true from a historical perspective, there is a possibility that the producer, director and/or writer took some liberty and added some dialogue which was never uttered in fact (this is a tragic reality of how Hollywood often distorts history to present its agenda). 

 

Anyway, some words were spoken in the hospital which were most intriguing and extremely educational (whether they were or were not spoken in truth does not matter at this point). 

 

Besides the several British soldiers who were patients in the hospital, there was a Boer militiaman (evidently a Swiss Huguenot) with an injured leg.  He and a couple of the British soldiers were talking about the anticipated Zulus before the Zulus showed up to start the battle. 

 

The two British soldiers were somewhat unconcerned about the coming Zulus and what might happen to themselves and the station at Rorke’s Drift.  As soldiers often react, they were grumbling and complaining.  The Swiss man asked them a question--how far could they march in a day?  One solder replied that he could hike 15 to 20 miles. 

 

The Swiss man pointed out that a Zulu Regiment could “run” 50 miles in a day and then still fight a battle after the run.  The two solders were totally unimpressed and tried to ridicule and make fun of the coming Zulus.  One soldier said he saw no sense in running to fight a battle. 

 

The question is--do things like this really matter?  Obviously, the two British soldiers were totally unconcerned about how strong and powerful the Zulus were.  Of course, in the ensuing 24 hours, when the small detachment of Whites was almost all wiped out and destroyed, the military powers of the Zulus were not something to make fun of or laugh about.  They were for real. 

 

 

Another Illustration

 

So, do things really matter? 

 

There is another illustration of this question which is most fascinating in respect to the Scriptures and truth.  In the summer of 2002, this writer wrote the following letter to two acquaintances in the religious business (one man was a pastor of a Church of God Abrahamic Faith, and the other man was somewhat independent, but did have a ministry and hold periodic religious meetings): 

 

“1st day of the Sixth Scriptural Month (Ellul, Neh 6:15)

 

“... and...

 

“Dear ...: 

 

“How would you like to do something which The MESSIAH did once a year for His entire life and something which everyone on earth will be doing annually in the World to Come, the (Hebrew) Olam Ha-Ba (Zech 14:16).  This something has enormous historical significance and it is also profoundly prophetic of future coming events.  It represents obedience and righteousness, per the Book. 

 

“Some people have become obsessed with so-called universal reconciliation.  While not necessarily subscribing to that idea, yours truly does hold out that one day all of Adam (at least the gerim of Adam) will be saved (after Adam repents of his multitudes of sins and truly changes/repents to become obedient to righteousness [the Torah] in the coming Renewed Covenant--Isa 59:20-21; Jer 31:33; Rom 11:26-27; Heb 8:10).  There used to be an old Christian song--Just as I am.  Well, YHWH will not accept people just as they are.  We all (including all Christians in the various 32,000 divided and confused Christian denominations) must repent and change and give up sin and the way we are.  Once Adam repents and sin stops, Adam can then be saved. 

 

“There is a coming time of great trial upon Adam, and indeed upon all men in the next few years.  Already, there is evidence that it has now started or is starting in the context of the paths to world government, tyranny and persecution (to include the Mark of the Beast). 

 

“The Book says that The ELOHIM will protect the “very elect” one day when this trouble really intensifies into the great tribulation (Isa 33:14-16; Mic 4:10; Matt 24:15-32; Rev 12:1-6, 13-16).  He will do it in the form of providing a sukkah (shade) from the hot sun (of persecution), evidently to those who now once a year dwell in sukkot and/or are otherwise obedient (Lev 23:43; Deut 16:13; Neh 8:15-17; Ps 27:5; 60:6; 91:1-4; 140:7; Isa 4:6--check the Hebrew text for understanding on these references).  Of course, this isn’t Christian theology.  But maybe Christian theology has it all wrong. 

 

“Anyway, the Scriptural festival of Sukkot (booths) arrives Sep 21st (starting the night before) to Sep 28th this year.  It would be marvelous if all of us could be in Jerusalem to observe it there.  But we will have to do the best we can under the present circumstances (at least, i cannot now afford a trip to Jerusalem).  Accordingly, i will keep Sukkot those days, as is my practice, instead of observing the popular Christian holidays. 

 

“The other day, the thought came to me that i should write you ... and... and invite you to do this something which The ELOHIM commands as righteousness at one of the most beautiful places left on planet earth (the still very primitive St Joe River in North Idaho, as it plunges out of the continental divide to flow to the town of St Maries, ID).  There are not a lot of people living along the St Joe, but in the summer, there are a few campers.  Camping is just marvelous here. 

 

“Of course, the way to keep this occasion is to do it like YESHUA did (build and dwell in a booth).  But even if you are not willing to go that far, there are numerous places (even possibly at my place, although i am up on a mountain and away from the river) where one can park a camper (like you have ...).  There are even state run places with electric outlets that are very inexpensive.  It would be a wonderful vacation for both of you, your wives and anyone else you would care to bring along (by all means, bring... and...)--and whether you do it with booths or with your campers (and you or we could have periodic cook-outs, studies and share). 

 

“Anyway, i felt compelled to write this letter and bring the matter up.  Booths is one of the great festivals that YHWH prescribes in His Word for His people.  It is a harvest festival, and in the sense that the salvation of Adam is couched in the Word in the symbolic vein of harvesting, booths represents the coming, future, summer/fall, great harvest of Adam. 

 

“ALTERNATIVELY, if you can’t fit a fall camping trip into your schedule, have you, ..., ever thought of having a “prophecy conference” which might just occur on the days of Sukkot?  Manifestly, we are in the age end.  It is incredible to me that anyone out there with brains above the idiot level cannot perceive the signs of the times we live in (as like in Matthew 25 with the asleep bridesmaids).  Trouble is right now on the horizon. 

 

“With regularly, world government is now falling into place, the wound to the beast is being healed, government tyranny is becoming a reality with the regular passage of more and more dictatorial laws (which take away our freedoms), the Mark of the Beast is prepared and ready to be imposed on man, homosexuality and miscegenation are exploding in popularity to bring on judgment (Matt 24:37-38; Lu 17:26-29), the Third Temple will “very soon” be going up (completely with YHWH’s blessing and guidance), assuredly two or perhaps four great prophets from YHWH will make their appearance on the global scene, global disease and plague epidemics can occur very rapidly, manifest weather problems are now occurring which can produce drought and famine, a global economic and financial meltdown is now in progress and a nuclear WWIII waits off stage (which will see the national end of the US and slavery for her surviving people); and while the nations talk about peace, they are all busy making preparations for war (including the US). 

 

“..., i have about 25 of the most outstanding video presentations a person can see on the development of world government, tyranny, Mark of the Beast; on the reality of 9-11, etc.  These all are professional videos with professional speakers as made by the Christian Prophecy Club.  While this outfit is very wrong (just like the rest of Christianity), they do make these marvelous films of speakers who are largely secular in orientation, but people with brains enough to see the coming world government (in the form of the UN and the ten regional divisions of planet earth, per the Club of Rome), and much of what it entails. 

 

“Anyway, if you would like to have a prophecy conference ..., i would consider making these videos available.  Perhaps they could be shown during Sukkot, maybe one each morning and one each afternoon (they each run over two hours).  In the evening you could have speakers.  Possibly you... or... could offer talks on some of these themes.  Although i am not trying to be pushy on your operation (because if YHWH does not motivate you in the right direction on this thing, it will all be wasted motion), i might also be available to discuss certain things. 

 

“For example, the coming Third Temple is thoroughly described in the Book (Ex 25:8; Ps 74:3-7; 79:1; Isa 2:2-3; 56:7; 66:23; Lam 1:4, 10; 2:1; Ezek 8 to 11; Dan 8:10-17; 9:26-27; 11:30-31; 12:8-11; Mic 4:1-2; Zech 6:12-13; Mal 3 to 4; Matt 24:15; Lu 21:20-24; II Thes 2:1-8; Rev 11:1-2).  It is even dated in excruciating detail in Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah as the Second Temple was the antetype for the Third).  This Temple is coming whether Christians like it or not--because it is YHWH’s will and it will serve His purpose and fulfill prophecy.  Even in the World to Come, YHWH will build and use a Fourth Temple (Ezek 40-47). 

 

“So whether Christians like it or not, they had better get in the mood to accept a Temple and animal sacrifices.  Sometime this year (either Sukkot or Hanukah), religious Jews (who are now prohibited from worshipping on Mount Moriah) could well go onto the mount and intensify preparations for the Third Temple (preparations are being made right now).  In a sense, the Temple Mount is really the key issue in the whole conflict between the Arabs and the Jews.  Even in 2000 at Camp David, the final dividing point became the status of the Temple Mount. 

 

“In the 1970s, there were a few minor, insignificant Jewish groups which were pushing for the building of the Temple.  Whenever these groups called a protest or rally over being denied access to the mount and the delay in building the Temple, only some few people would show up (ten to thirty).  After the intifada broke out in 2000, rallies now bring out 50,000 to 200,000 Jews in Old Jerusalem. 

 

“The Prophecy Club tapes have not really broached this subject, but yours truly is familiar with it and would be prepared to talk about it.  However, Christians are generally in need of milk and the first basic rudimentary remarks on truth (like on the status of the Greek NT, the Torah, the real commission in the NT, pride and vanity, who they are racially in the Book, and other basic themes) and not complicated discussions on prophecy which most Christians simply are unprepared for in terms of really understanding. 

 

“Anyway, if you... would choose to have a prophecy conference during Sukkot, i would consider coming and would be prepared to offer my excellent tapes and even give a talk (but i will not be taught by or subject to a woman leader or boss if that is the way you choose to make any involvement from me--Gen 1:26; 2:18-25; 3:16; I Cor 11:1-15; 14:34-35; Eph 5:33; I Tim 2:9-15.  Manifestly, I Peter 3:7 and Isaiah 3:12 tell what can happen when these instructions are disobeyed and i will not be a part of it.  Women can teach and supervise other women and children publicly and “assist” and help their husbands in teaching men privately (Acts 18:26), but not men publicly/by themselves.  Yet, if i was lost on a desert island with someone, i would it to be a woman.  Women are beautiful and desirable, and the perfect companion and helpmate for men, but not as supervisors or teachers over men. 

 

“Let me know your wishes if any of this appeals to you.  The opportunities for most Americans to keep Sukkot correctly in this age and lifetime seem to be coming to an end.  Great trouble is now knocking at the door.  It will come swiftly and Christians are generally unprepared for it!  Essentially, they know nothing about it and most don’t want to know (Isa 30:10; II Tim 4:3-4).  Like YHWH says, His people will be destroyed for a lack of knowledge and He will reject those who forget His Torah (Hos 4:6). 

 

“Shalom, ...”

 

 

The After-Effect 

 

The above letter was sent to the two persons known to me (the remark on women leaders had to be mentioned because both men/religious groups use women preachers and leaders in their ministries). 

 

The Church of God Abrahamic Faith preacher never even bothered to answer the letter and say thank you but no or anything else. 

 

The preacher involved was such a big shot and knew so much that the points outlined made no impact upon him at all (as a matter of information, this preacher had went to the church “Bible College,” and it apparently inflated him somewhat--in truth, proud people rarely say thanks for anything!). 

 

The other man likewise did not respond one way or the other.  However, some time later, the other man and this writer had a conversation about another matter.  During our conversation, he casually mentioned that he had received my letter and that he was going to have his religious meeting in late October, just before Halloween. 

 

This writer mentioned that this period was about the time of the feast of Jeroboam (on the 15th day of the 8th Scriptural month, I Kg 12:33).  But my words made no impact upon my acquaintance, as he was pretty apathetic and uninterested in the Sukkot festival of YHWH. 

 

 

The Temple Mount 

 

The above comments in the letter on religious Jews gaining access to the Temple Mount deserve some further mention. 

 

When the Arab Intifada broke out in 2000, one of the things which Israel did was to prohibit any Jewish or Christian access to the Temple Mount.  Actually, Jewish religious access had been shut off in 1973.  So the 2000 stoppage was no big deal in itself. 

 

While the Jews did not gain access in 2002 (as allowed in my letter, for Sukkot or Hanukkah which occurred in December 2002), they did gain access in early 2003.  

 

The Jul 11, 2003, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 4-5) had a story that Israeli authorities had been allowing small groups of both Jews and Christians to go onto the Temple Mount while accompanied by Israeli police. 

 

Presumably, these visits have essentially involved religious groups; which would allow that religious Jews (in these groups) are now going on to the Temple Mount for worship (although they still may not be allowed to pray). 

 

For sure, one group did include some Christian tourists and ten religious Jews, including “Ehrat Chief Rabbi Shlomo Riskin” (his visit will be further addressed in a later chapter herein). 

 

The remarks said that Israeli authorities discussed the matter with the Muslim Wakf some time ago.  However, the decision was made unilaterally by the Israelis to quietly and gradually reopen the mount (perhaps the Muslims did not agree with it). 

 

The report did not say when the visits first started; but that they have been going on for the “past few weeks,” per the “Jerusalem Post.”  Since press time for this issue of the “Jerusalem Post” was around July 1st, it suggests that the visits may have started as early as Aviv or Ziw of 2003 (April-May). 

 

 

Traditional Christians 

 

Since both of the parties addressed in my letter, quoted above, were traditional Christians, it probably was natural that neither of them would be interested in the mentioned festival of Sukkot.  Alternatively, the mention of the Prophecy Club tapes and my offer of them should have awaken both of these men from the deep sleep that they were functioning under. 

 

For a fact, this writer is acquainted with both men and they are both extremely uninformed on the age end and the prophetic issues raised with them in the letter. 

 

Of course, the Church of God Abrahamic Faith is essentially like other Christian denominations.  They know almost nothing! 

 

So, in terms of the letter sent to these two Christian leaders, and their resulting apathy and don’t care, the question must be asked--Do the two issues covered in the letter (Sukkot and the prophetic age end) matter to either of these two men?  Again, do things matter or not?  Or put another way, do important issues matter or not? 

 

 

Milan Martin 

 

Sometime in 2002, this writer heard an interesting remark by Milan Martin, a speaker on one of the Prophecy Club tapes (in his video on “Lucifer’s Children”).  Anyway, Martin (quoting Adam Weishaupt, who organized the infamous Illuminati on May 1, 1776, as will be described in later chapters) said that people generally fall into one of three categories--doers, watchers and everybody else. 

 

Although not mentioned by Martin, surely that statement must be qualified to read that there are doers, watchers and everyone else in any given subject or field of interest to man (like in politics, government, tyranny, religion, commerce, sociology, TV soap operas, sports, hobbies, etc).  In other words, a person might be a doer or watcher on a given issue or pursuit, but neither on other issues. 

 

The doers are the individuals (though very few in number) who make things happen (on the subject involved).  The watchers are persons (also small in number, but still larger than the doers) who sit on the sidelines and watch what all the doers are doing.  The watchers are noted for evaluating and critiquing the doers (by agreeing/applauding or disagreeing/criticizing), as the doers are busy doing things. 

 

Finally, there are all of the other people (who are the bulk of so-called humanity).  They are neither watchers or doers.  They are people who could care less--either way.  In effect, they don’t care whether school keeps or not. 

 

Because of pride, vanity and apathy (which will be assessed in some detail in succeeding chapters), the huge number of other people (who are not doers or watchers) have their own world of loves, idols and so forth which consume their time, energy and money.  Most of what goes on around them means nothing, one way or the other, from their point of view. 

 

 

So, Do Things Matter? 

 

So, do things matter to the generic population?  No!  Probably, things only matter to the doers, and to a lesser extent, to the watchers (on given subjects or pursuits of interest).  The vast bulk of the population could care less one way or the other--unless it directly affects their own loves, idols and gods (which they are personally interested in, then they may become doers or watchers on that issue). 

 

In today’s modern America, too many men are obsessed with sports, too many women are addicted to TV soap operas, too many teens and young people are concerned only with sex and drugs, and almost everyone focuses upon other frivolous things.  Thus, most Americans, who are doers or watchers, are devoted to frivolous things of evil or of no importance. 

 

Contrariwise, the real issues on truth, righteousness, morality and even what goes on around themselves in society in terms of politics, government, religion, imposition of tyranny, etc has few doers or watchers.  Most people simply don’t care one way or the other on these important themes.

 

The mind, attitude and attention of most Americans are totally directed to their loves and idols in life--like sports, TV, various hobbies, what they will eat tonight, what color to paint the house and other frivolous things of little or no importance. 

 

This study at hand covers many important topics which do matter here in the age end.  But the question must arise--how many people are concerned one way or the other on these profoundly important issues?  How about the reader at this point in time?