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 d