Messianic Myths of the 21st Century (3): Did Yeshua Always Keep the Sinai Torah?

[Rebbe]

MESSIANIC MYTHS OF THE 21ST CENTURY (Part 3)
Did Yeshua Always Keep the Sinai Torah?

Copyright © BRI 2012,2018 All Rights Reserved Worldwide
by Les Aron Gosling, Messianic Lecturer (BRI)

CAUTION: BRI Yeshiva notes are not available to the general public. They are not for distribution. They are not for reproduction. The notes may also bear little or no resemblance to the actual recorded BRI Yeshiva lecture.

"I have not come to destroy the Torah or the prophets, but to fulfill them" - Yeshua the Nazarene King of the Jews

"He takes away the first [Sinai covenant] that he may establish the second [covenant]" - Heb 10.9

I wish to explode a major myth that continues to dramatise early church history. That myth involves a belief that when Yeshua was crucified, the disciples that (at that time) constituted the Messianic Community of Yeshua the Nazarene King of the Jews, were all theologically apprehensive of that which we know today pertaining to the biblical revelation. In other words the "church" was already, at this very early time period, spiritually developed, spiritually mature, and spiritually equipped -- they were on a par with (what we could refer to as) modern 21st century understanding of the teachings of the Bible. And, all the disciples of Yeshua were in total agreement doctrinally.

Its a load of horse manure.

When Yeshua was crucified, the Messianic School of Yeshua was in a shambles. Disciples met in seclusion for terror of the Jewish authorities. Peter made up his mind that he was returning to his paid job: "I am going fishing," he said (Jn 21.3). Initial vicious Herodian persecution of the small School of Yeshua scattered the Movement. Then there was Rav Shaul, with letters of authority from the Sadducean High Priest, on his way to Damascus in Syria to destroy once and for all the rather formidable body of ex-Essene disciples of Yeshua. He had already proven his salt with the execution (really, the murder) of the Hellenist believer, Stephen.

"Damascus Roads" change everything.

Toppled from his horse in broad daylight, Saul strains to see more of the brilliant white figure confronting him. There is mass confusion amongst those with the Rabbi. "Who are you, Sir?" he asks trembling. Burning eyes analyse the Rav. "I am Yeshua WHOM YOU ARE PERSECUTING."

Yes, the "Damascus Road" of Rav Shaul altered the shape of the history of the Messianic Movement once and for all time.

It was not Peter who changed the course of Christianity. It was not Nathaniel; it was not John or James or Matthew. It was Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. It was Paul, and ONLY Paul, who considered the bloody tree of Golgoleth and had the brilliance to ask, "WHY?"

With this question theology was born. Rav Shaul was our first theologian. A grasp of theology is why we are all associated with the BRI/IMCF. We are gathered together to be educated into the Jewish thoughtform which -- by the Spirit -- brings us into a closer apprehension of God's expectations of humanity and a relishing of the core of the Gospel Message, GRACE.

But there is another myth circulating in the Messianic Movement and it also must be addressed in this mini-lecture. The myth constellates around the view that Yeshua was totally obedient to the Sinai Torah. Moreover, had he not been obedient he would have been guilty of becoming a sinner. We shall address this view below.

We have been studying the Sinai Covenant. We have found it to be a marriage contract between HaShem (mediated through angelic powers) and the nation of Israel. There have been a few surprises along the way -- but this is how it is when you study with the Messianic Rebbe. For God's Spirit knows I am not a coward who will shy away from the truth no matter how controversial that same truth may well be.

I have articulated on a number of occasions just how seemingly unintelligent so many Christians and Messianic believers happen to be when it comes to desiring to place themselves underneath the stipulations and the regulations of a marriage contract that is no longer in existence and which contract never ever applied to them in the first place.

We have already seen that God changed the Torah regulations concerning the 2nd commandment and the rule against marrying two sisters when he went ahead and married two sisters. He changed the Torah commandment about a divorced wife returning to her first husband and he did so because of His immense love for Israel. He changed his curse concerning an "abomination" that "causes the land to sin" in an exchange of intended GRACE and blessing. His example is the one we all need to follow. Yeshua is HaShem who came in flesh as a human being and he himself had a great deal to say in Matthew 5-7 in his notifications about the new covenant. In fact Mashiach, when he was here on earth, fulfilled what Isaiah prophesied about his coming ministry:

"HaShem is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the Torah, and make it honourable" (Isa 42.21).

You mean it wasn't all that "honourable" before Yeshua came? No, it wasn't. Otherwise there would be no reason in predicting that Mashiach would indeed make it so. I have established this as a fact in two previous lectures I have given so far on the Sinai Covenant. I will say more on this at the conclusion of this lecture.

To recap, we have found that God married two sisters (which His own Torah forbids) and that He had a failed marriage -- needing to divorce both of those wives for adultery. HaShem also failed miserably at child rearing -- his kids contributed to a deeply dysfunctional family and this indeed is God's great lament through the pages of the prophet Isaiah. Israel was divorced in circa 721/718 BCE when the Assyrians finally defiled her body, and again in circa 587/586 BCE when Judah was divorced and she became the possession of the Babylonians.

Because of HaShem's love for Israel and Judah He sent His son Yeshua (HaShem in the flesh) to the Jewish nation to attempt to woo her back, but she not only spurned His love, she murdered her husband.

Divorce should have ended the marriage, but if it failed to do so (because of God's pursuit of faithless wife Israel despite unrequited love) the death of the ex-Husband at Israel's hands certainly brought the Sinai Contract to an abrupt conclusion. The curses of Deut 28 were then invoked, and the persecution at the hands of Israel's enemies has been relentless.

There are certain Messianic apologists who make the claim that the Sinai Covenant was called "old" (as in the "Old Covenant") mainly because of its existence prior to the coming of a "New Covenant." So it was in fact "older" than the "new." But this is telling us only part of the story.

After all, to understand Greek words which are translated into English in the writings of the New Covenant Scriptures (the so-called New Testament) one must be familiar with their usage in secular writings of the same age in which the Second Temple texts appeared. This is only logical.

According to Hebrews: "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete [Greek, pepalaioken]. And what is becoming obsolete [Greek, palaioumenon] and growing old [Greek, geraskon] is ready to vanish away" (Heb 1.13 Greek).

The Sinai Covenant was ready to "vanish away" with the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish State in 70 CE. The letter to the Hebrews was penned just prior to the declaration of War with Rome.

The "Old" Covenant, or Sinai marriage contract, implies by its very nature a covenant which in its entirety has become "antiquated and outworn" (Arndt & Gingrich), "worn out" (Bullinger) and "obsolete" (Haarbeck). Contemplate the meanings of these words: Antiquated, outworn or worn out, obsolete!

It's finished. It's over. It was a marriage contract which no longer has an existence. The marriage is negated. Anybody who has been divorced knows that a marriage (and the contract upon which it was based) is through, totaled, demolished, ruined, dynamited, torpedoed, spent, washed-up, done-for, OVER! It has CEASED to exist; it is CONCLUDED.

But somehow in the minds of folk who wish to be controlled by Jewish and pro-Israeli megalomaniacs it yet has an existence. I cannot get my head around the thinking of such people.

Paul finally referred to the Judaisms of his day and age as a "religion of angels" (Col 2.18). Recall that Paul uses a Greek noun -- threeskia -- which has been mistranslated in a number of popular Bibles as "worship" or similar. But it is not really worship as such, but the means or channel of worship, the ceremonial form or ritual, in other words "religion." It is the same identical word used in Ac 26.5 & Jam 1.26,27. Notice it again (I spoke about this in Part One of The Sinai Covenant):

"They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion [Gk. threeskia] I lived a Pharisee" (Acts 26.5).

"If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion [Gk. threeskia] is useless. Pure and undefiled religion [Gk. threeskia] before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from [the ways of] the world" (Jam 1.26,27).

None of us must shrink from the obvious biblical revelation that the Judaisms of the Second Temple Period were fragmentary residues of an earlier, powerful cultus: the original religion of Moses which came into an existence through the intermediary channel of extraterrestrial beings. Judaism was a religion of angels, short and sweet! Some of us may not like the implications of this assessment but it is the truth of the matter, and history establishes this to be a fact.

Certainly if you use a concordance (remember its Strong's for the strong; Cruden's for the crude, and Young's for the young) and you look up "angels" in the NT Corpus it will be most enlightening. You will discover what the early Messianic Movement thought of the entire Sinai Covenant: it was created by angels. It wasn't God in a burning bush -- it was an angel. It wasn't God at Mt Sinai giving Moses the Torah -- it was an angel. It wasn't God who led Israel out of Egypt -- it was an angel. It wasn't HaShem who passed over the houses of the Egyptians and the Israelites on the night of Pesach -- it was a destroying angel. Indeed, a particular angel of the Lord's Presence actually had HaShem's HOLY NAME centred in his very Being.

The pivotal verse which establishes all this to be the case is found in Ex 23.20-22.

"Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries."

That the religion of Moses, known as the Sinai Covenant, was "a religion of angels" can hardly be disputed. I have shown clearly over the weeks the role that angels played in the entire Exodus period. I have shown clearly that when we read of God doing this or God doing that or God revealing himself this way or that way -- it is invariably an angel under discussion. This was understood not only by Stephen our first Christian martyr, and Paul, and others recorded in the NT Corpus, but this also was grasped by the rabbinic authorities of the Second Temple Period and also Josephus and early Christian apologists like Aristides. To consider otherwise is to play the fool. Yet, some do.

Is Paul correct when he speaks of the Sinai Torah as "holy, just and good" (Rom 7.12)? Let me just say this: NOBODY has ever heard me say the opposite. I uphold the Torah of God. I love the Torah of God. But I love and enjoy the Torah of the Messiah MUCH MORE than that of Moses.

After all is said and done, I have some issues with Moses. I have none with Yeshua. I like Moses, but I love Yeshua. I am heading in the same direction as Moses, and his angels for that matter, but I walk hand in hand with Yeshua. And we all should.

(Trouble is most Christians/Messianics do not have a mind of their own to actually think about what they read! Yes, this is a "put-down" because if you are one of these folk then you deserve the "put-down." And I do so in order that you pray to HaShem to find the courage to THINK for yourself. God the Father is not going to condemn you for thinking for your self! In no way would this be the case. He desires that you use the brain He gave you to benefit yourself in spiritual matters. Above all else God the Father is the God that lets us be.)

Recently I talked a little about a few of the issues I have with the written Torah of Moses (which he received by the hand of angels). Let me remind you again of them -- and there are MANY more.

In Deut 23.2 we find the law prohibiting a mamzer -- and his descendants -- entering the precincts of the religious cult of Israel as if its his or her fault for being illegitimate. To my 21st century mindscape this does not appear to be at all acceptable. Not only so in the case of someone born out of a marriage relationship -- if you were a dwarf, or had a testicle that had not descended, or you were a eunuch the same discrimination was applied. I do not know about you, but I would have absolutely no objection to people with testicle problems, and I have known epicene or intersex people (they used to be called hermaphrodites) and I have found them to be nice people, and I would love to attend a dwarf throwing contest as long as appropriate rules were followed so that no injuries occurred. (My last comment need not be taken too seriously!)

In Deut 25.11,12 a woman is forbidden to crush the genitals of an assailant who is involved in a life and death struggle with her husband. The killer, after all, may not have any children and his future may therefore be quite dim if he loses the use of the crown jewels! Progeny was everything back then. In contrast, I have taught my daughters to fight to the death if necessary if they are being raped or strangled by some drug-screwed maniac or serial killer -- and to use any such force as they feel is necessary to get away from such an evil individual. If it means crushing his genitals (if the mongrel has any!) or tearing out his eyes - DO IT. No holds barred.

In Deut 21.1-6 we find a very unfair situation favouring an employer right down the line ... women were owned like livestock and they had a production value, and therefore his children were also utilised for their breeding value. They needed slaves back then! The employer owned the man's wife, and the man's children. Put that into a 21st century perspective!

Do we follow HaShem as Yeshua revealed Him to us? Or do we follow angels who had the name of God in their Being?

One of the great arguments coming from Messianics who wish to be under the Sinai regulations follow like this: festival regulations located in the Torah were, and by virtue of the eternality of the Word still are, our "schoolmaster" leading us to the reality of Messiah. As such the feasts ought to be kept for continual leading to the Messiah. Effectively, such theology in the final analysis would insist on the observance of the feast days of Israel for salvation purposes.

Members of Christian organisations that sympathise with theologies of this sort should be reminded that the Lord's salvation comes to us as an entirely free gift and cannot be earned by the keeping of any laws, or by the exercising of any good works, including the regulations and requirements of the Jewish agricultural year. We must insist that Salvation IS a free gift, not a threatening ultimatum!

There are any number of churches and denominations that promulgate the idea that the Torah was a "schoolmaster" which had the sole purpose of bringing us to the Messiah. But those who accept law-oriented theologies will see, if they can possibly consider the obvious with unbiased eyes, that in fact the laws of Moses were not the "schoolmaster" that leads us to Yeshua the Messiah.

Rather, the "Schoolmaster" IS Yeshua haMashiach.

When Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians he used a special word, paidagogos, which has been unfortunately translated in the Authorised Version as "schoolmaster" (Gal 3.24,25) and in the sectarian Concordant Version as a watered-down "escort." The word is better translated "tutor" or "guardian." Indeed, the NASB and NEB translate as "tutor"; Jerusalem and Beck as "guardian" and the RSV reads "custodian." MacGorman quotes Bertram: "Sonship as immediacy to the Father is rather different from dependence on even the best pedagogue" (J.W. MacGorman in Huber L. Drumwright & Curtis Vaughan [eds] New Testament Studies: Essays in Honour of Ray Summers in his Sixty-fifth Year, 1975, 110,111). When this more appropriate designation is understood, especially in its ramifications, much needed light is cast on the entirety of the antiquated Mosaic system.

So WHAT was a paidagogos?

The paidagogos in Greek households was a supervisor of boys. From ages 7 to about 16 the general care, training and education of children was committed to this "slave-tutor." Not only was one of his prime responsibilities to be their protector, he had the authority and the commission to severely discipline them when he felt they needed steering in the right direction.

This "slave-tutor" was, for all intents and purposes, a "substitute" father for the child. The "name" or "authority" of the male parent was "placed in him." If the "slave-tutor" was educated himself, and many were, he assisted the children in the preparation of their lessons. In fact, in Greek art he is almost always pictured as having a stick or corrective rod in his hand.

At the age of seven, "the boy was handed over to the care of the paidagogos ... [he] might well be with the lad ... until the time he was sixteen or even eighteen. Wherever the lad went, the paidagogos had to go; he and the lad were inseparable companions ... [he] was responsible for the training of the lad in ... manners. It was his duty to see that the boy walked in the streets with modesty and downcast head; that he was well-mannered at table and that he wore his clothes with grace; that he was always silent in the presence of his elders and gave place to them" (William Barclay, Educational Ideals in the Ancient World, 1974, 96,97).

Greek scholar and Bible translator Kenneth Wuest writes, "This slave was entrusted with the moral supervision of the child. His duties were therefore quite distinct from those of a schoolmaster ... [paidagogos] refers to a guardian of a child in its minority rather than to a teacher or schoolmaster" (K. Wuest, Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, 1944, 1972, 110). Actually, Professor Wuest translates the Galatian passage as: "So that the law became our guardian until Christ, in order that on the grounds of faith we might be justified; but this faith having come, no longer are we under the guardian, for all of you are God's sons through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3.24,25).

The Torah of Moses was, according to Paul, the guardian or slave-tutor that had the orientation of leading the child (in this analogy, ancient Israel) to the actual schoolmaster for a richer, wider, deeper and more meaningful education, for a reception of a more complex knowledge (transcendent gnosis) than this paidagogos could ever be capable of extending to an immature student (Wuest, ibid, 113). So it is that the unknown author of the letter to the Hebrews enumerates that the law given to the Israelites was imposed "UNTIL the times of reformation" (Heb 9.10). This is repeated by Paul in Gal 4.1-3. Let us consider this passage in Galatians:

"Now I say, that an heir as long as he is a child differs nothing from a slave, though he be lord of all: but is under tutors and guardians UNTIL the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage."

Wuest: "Now I say, that as long as the heir is in his minority, he does not differ one bit from a slave, even though he is owner of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time previously fixed by his father. In like manner, we also, when we were in our minority, were in a permanent state of servitude under the rudimentary first principles of mankind."

The protection and safekeeping of the minor, even though he was heir to a fortune, was entrusted to the general supervision of the slave-tutor (and in a sense he was actually in bondage to the system imposed by the father). This situation and condition would last until a specific time of release set by the child's father, or in the sense of national Israel, when God himself so determined. In other words, when the child had developed sufficiently to an acceptable stage of maturity the satisfied father released him from the subjection to which he had become accustomed: he was freed from his servitude to the paidagogos.

Indeed, Paul further qualified the position of converts to the Messianic Faith by revealing that, as Messianic believers, we are dead to the law as married to it (Rom 7.4 Gk), are delivered from certain negative aspects of it (Rom 7.6 Gk), and further, that the law could well be a system of bondage (Gal 4.24,25 Gk) which most assuredly formed a ministration of death (2 Cor 3.7,8,11). Messianic believers have been removed from any hint of the death penalty for transgression of the law (See Rom 8.1 Gk.) The misuse of the Torah regulations by the Herodians in the Second Temple Period, as testified by the writers of the time, was a veritable "yoke on the necks" of all who served under its imposition (Acts 15.10).

Of course, there will be some who will question, and with legitimacy, why God gave such a heavily-loaded regulatory system to Israel. They query -- if the laws and rules of conduct were good, worthwhile and beneficial (as Rav Shaul himself proclaimed) -- why they became "a yoke...which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15.10).

The truth is that basically none could keep the whole law in a perfect manner -- especially when the Jewish religious leaders added numerous accretions to the Torah. Those accretions and additional regulations made the observance of the Torah in a perfect manner utterly impossible. Yeshua railed against the scribes who added a myriad of rules which were formally encoded in the Mishnah. When God keeps silence on certain issues, religious men deem it important for them to add, presumptuously, their own clarifying regulations which usually do more harm than good in the long run.

Thus the result was that all sinned -- all became guilty before God. As Paul explained, "Why then the law? It was added to make transgressions manifest" (Gal 3.19). Torah, as revelation and law, was a two-edged sword. (See Lenskis Commentary for the exact meaning of Gal 3.19). Thus the purpose of God was manifest, "that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God" (Rom 3.19).

In a word -- No transgression? No Grace!

As referenced earlier, the entire Torah-administration had become antiquated and outworn and obsolete. This is why we in the IMCF refer to the "Old" (Original) Mosaic or Sinai Covenant as the "Antiquated Covenant" which is, we feel, a more appropriate appellation.

Certainly, I have maintained that the "Old" Covenant, or Sinai Marriage Contract, implies by its very nature a covenant which in its entirety has become "antiquated and outworn" "worn out" and "obsolete." Again, "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete [Greek, pepalaioken]. And what is becoming obsolete [palaioumenon] and growing old [geraskon] is ready to vanish away" (Heb 1.13 Greek).

An entirely new "system" was in the process of being ushered in and was replacing the existing order. In a word, the slave-tutor (the paidagogos) had been retrenched -- replaced -- by the actual arrival of the Schoolmaster in Israel's salvation-experience. That which was in a state of decay (Heb 8.13) had been disannuled (Heb 7.18) for the Reality to which it pointed had come in the form of the living personification of God. HENCE THE NEED OF THE NEW COVENANT. Because certain factors were made redundant within the existing Covenant, it needed to be replaced by an entirely New Covenant.

The truth of such a statement is manifest in the continued objections to the Word of God by Gentile adherents of the "Mosaic system" in the fringes of modern Christian apostasy. The representatives of Satan's modern synagogues insist on perverting the message of Galatians. In fact, the class-conscious and self-elevated hierarchy of the world's largest feast-keeping organisations (the Armstrong sects) insist that their sects does not understand the letter to the Galatians (I spoke of this years ago: The Interpreter's Pulpit, a BRI publication, December 1991, Vol.I., No.3, 16). We cannot help but agree with them.

Devoid of the Spirit of God, these modern Waldenses cannot understand the one book scholars have called "the Magna Charta of Christian Liberty" (M.C. Tenney, Galatians, 1950, 1957). Why do fear-ridden disciples of our modern Moloch's gospel of "cause and effect" -- the "Prosperity Gospel" -- fail to understand, even in an intellectual way, the central theme of Galatians? Could it, we muse, have something to do with Paul's de-emphasis of the salvation value of the holy city of Jerusalem, the de-emphasis of the salvation value of the Mosaic law, the de-emphasis of the salvation value of the agricultural calendar, and the de-emphasis of the salvation value of the bloody rite of circumcision? Paul did not even spare de-emphasising the salvation value of the rest of the original apostles (Gal 2.9 cf vss.6-8; and consider Paul's continued reference to a particular "man" who remained suspicious of his gospel of Grace, an apparent allusion to James (Gal 1.1,10-12,16,17,19; 2.4,12 etc).

Wuest in his masterful work on Galatians more than hints at the fact that the Jewish representatives from Jerusalem who had taken it upon themselves to evangelise Paul's converts in Galatia, were bringing the Gentiles under the terms of the Sinai Covenant. "The days, months and years which the Galatians were observing, were those which the Mosaic Law required Israel to observe. This is made clear by Paul's statement in 4:21, to the effect that the Galatians are bent on being under the law" (Wuest, op.cit., 122).

It seems the case, as Wuest continues to observe, that the Galatian Messianic believers had not yet adopted the terms of the whole Sinai Covenant, and that "the Judaisers had pursued the adroit course of presenting to them only part of the requirements of the Mosaic law, those parts which might be least repulsive to them as Gentiles. Having gotten them to adopt the festivals and perhaps the fast days the Judaisers were now urging them to adopt circumcision" (ibid).

Wuest's "Protestant view" of the Torah aside, it is true that there were extreme salvationists in the first century who were "bent" toward getting Gentiles to observe the entire Torah (even regulations which were included in it specifically for the Jewish people only). There were mystical accretions added which were also an affront to the liberty of Jews as well as Gentiles.

Paul comprehended that in such rituals there was no possible hope of salvation, absolutely none. Logically, according to Pauline theology, if there was no hope of salvation in the law, particularly with all its man-added accretions, then clearly it was a "spiritually" unprofitable venture to meticulously observe it especially if such a keeping of the law made one feel worthy of acceptance by God and righteous in His sight.

We would suggest to Wuest and others (particularly those in the Messianic fringe world of Christianity or Messianic Judaism) that the entire issue of Paul's caution constellated around the adoption of a Covenant (the Sinai Marriage Contract) that was already perishing. AND what on earth were Gentiles doing attempting to adopt the marriage laws of the Sinai Covenant -- a marriage contract that existed between the angels of God and the Jewish people -- a covenant that had already been severed? Indeed, God's FINAL WORD in it all was the destruction of the Temple of God in Jerusalem, and the decimation of Jerusalem itself at the hands of the Romans.

Such an adoption of the Sinai Covenant by Gentiles would distort the purpose of legal justification. Paul realised that only in Yeshua is there any salvation. It is entirely natural that our modern Judaisers corrupt and distort the Word of God, creating a negative biblical theology in which man is seen to be striving with God -- where man labours along in a type of partnership with God to gain His acceptance and His salvation. Again, it is entirely natural that Judaisers must wrest and twist entire passages of Scripture out of context. It is entirely natural that they feel the need to replace the Christocentric Gospel, emphatic in its theme of liberation, with a message of moral servitude to regulations and rules with its underlying sense of sensual sanctity adopted in order to justify the incorporation of obsolete purity regulations into a personal lifestyle for CONTROL of entire churches and sects in their "spiritual" care. They piously maintain a righteousness before God and the world for salvation-privileges but in so doing will never receive the essential blessings of God and the necessary fellowship of the holy Spirit. To think otherwise is to display woeful spiritual ignorance. An unhappy delusion awaits as the ultimate result of their works.

Make no mistake, there are valuable lessons to be learned in a study of the Torah of God!

For, the Torah is much more than mere law. The Torah IS a revelation! Again, even the literal keeping of the annual Sabbaths and festivals for ordinary Christians can be an enriching experience (Howard A. Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins: Church Structure in a Technological Age, 1975, 108,109). But observed for salvation purposes, or utilised in order to become the recipients of God's favour in keeping these regulations, is to be locked-in to the cultic darkness of haSatan.

Today's modern Christian community faces a crisis of confidence in its current leadership -- an open invitation for the corrupt theology of legalism to make its devastating inroads into the lives of sanctified worshipers. The Messianic Community of God in first century Galatia faced a similar situation.

Judaisers had arrived from Jerusalem from the apostle James (the brother of Yeshua) compelling the Gentile converts in the local assemblies to adopt the traditions of Moses and to inculcate the ordinances of the Antiquated Covenant as a matter of acceptance in the eyes of God. The letter to the Galatians makes this fact patently clear. Paul realised that if this was admitted such a precedent would be an acknowledgment that there was no ultimate need of a Messiah.

The Galatians were already imbued with the attractiveness of the message of "Cause and Effect" (or, "keep this law and a result of good will be forthcoming") and had already begun to seek to gain righteousness, NOT AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE IMPUTATION OF MASHIACH'S PERFECTED RIGHTEOUSNESS, as specifically revealed in the bloodied tree of Golgoleth, but by the works -- even good and worthwhile works -- of the law and the injunctions of the Jerusalem rabbis. Such was an inevitable consequence of their action (Gal 4.8-10). It is a pity that the leaders of the Messianic Community in Jerusalem, and for that matter, the rabbis and Sanhedrin, could not at that time accept the inescapable effects of the sacrificial atonement of the Messiah. As Schaff admits,

"The Jewish converts at first very naturally adhered as closely as possible to the sacred traditions of their fathers. THEY COULD NOT BELIEVE that the religion of the Old Testament, revealed by God himself, should pass away" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1910, Vol. I., 337. Emphasis in quotations in italics mine throughout this series of lectures).

So difficult was this change (initiated by the administration of the Ruach HaKodesh through the human agency of the apostle Paul) that some scholars claim Paul, rather than Yeshua, was the real founder of the Christian Faith. So radical were the changes wrought under Paul's apostleship, some have dared venture that Paul was "that great apostate" or "hell-bent wolf" to whom the prophets and Our Lord referred. Certainly Paul was held in contempt by the Ebionite-Christians. In fact Baur and the theologians of the Tubingen School held the theory that the Magus, Simon, mentioned by Luke in the account in Acts, was really a pseudonym for Paul. (For a study of the considerable major differences in the teachings of Yeshua and Paul, see V.A. Holmes-Gore, Christ or Paul? A Re-Examination of Paul's Influence on Christianity, 1946).

We admit that by direct revelations of the Spirit the apostle Paul revolutionised the original Messianic "Yeshua Party" and set it on its path as a universal Faith. No sensible person would think otherwise. Even the original "Twelve" were having difficulties adjusting to these new conceptions gradually being introduced by the administration of the Spirit. This ought not surprise us as Yeshua warned his disciples that there were many things He wanted to impart to them but at that time they were too immature in theological comprehension to assimilate them (Jn 16.12 Gk).

"The disciples of Jerusalem are represented as contending with Peter because he had gone in to men uncircumcised and had eaten with them ... They did not admit the right of any Jew to cease observing the Jewish law, and to disregard the prohibition against eating with the uncircumcised. THE LATTER STEP WAS NOT TAKEN EVEN AT THE COUNCIL [of Acts 15] SOME YEARS LATER" (Arthur C. McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, 105).

Yes, even Peter who had denied Yeshua during his Lord's agony and to whom God gave the vision showing him there were no longer any differences in the classes and races of men, could not tolerate these new progressive revelations from the apostle Paul! In Gal 2.11 Paul has no hesitation in having Gentiles recall that "Peter was to blame" MANY YEARS AFTER the event.

QUESTION: Did Yeshua ever depart from the Torah?

There are arguments presented that Yeshua always kept every law of God otherwise He could not have been sinless. LISTEN. If we are to understand ANYTHING I have taught today -- realise this one fact! Yeshua was sinless not because of what He did or did not DO, but because of WHO HE WAS.
 
Please THINK about what I have just written. Consider it carefully.

Then ask -- why it was that the Jewish religious leaders wondered aloud if Yeshua would make aliyah to Jerusalem to observe the festival (Jn 11.56). After all, attendance of males was required at festivals by the Torah of God three times a year. But for them to even wonder if he would attend reveals a great deal in itself. If Yeshua had always religiously attended the festivals the question would never have been put. Believers who are Torah observant oftentimes sidestep this factor.

There are other questions that are raised about Yeshua's strict observance of the Sinai requirements. Recall the story of the Good Samaritan -- a despised race in the eyes of the Jewish people in the Second Temple Period. Why was he good? Why would Yeshua use the example of a despised Samaritan? Could it be the case that it was because of the view of the Torah concerning despised Canaanites? Whatever the case, he extolled the actions of the Samaritan who went right out of his way to help his enemy -- a brutalised Jew (Lk 10.25ff).

The highest religious authorities of the land, to whom the people looked for spiritual guidance, were the priests and the Levites. In the story Yeshua is sharing, both leaders of the Jewish people walked right around their injured brother because they were commanded to do so under the terms and conditions of the Sinai marriage agreement. To come into contact with an injured brother Israelite would have caused them to be considered ceremonially "unclean" for a period of seven days which would have restricted them in their religious vocation of doing good for the majority of the people (See Num 19.11-16; cf Lev 15). The injunctions of the Torah are explicit concerning this -- it was a commandment which could not in any way be avoided. So both the priest and the Levite went their way doing what God had commanded them. Here was a prime example of Yeshua's teaching in which he creates an entirely new theology based upon HaShem's authentic sentimental morality toward humankind rather than the mere observance of rules and regulations -- which were brought into an existence by the angelic powers of God even at God's original covenantal command.

Look. All rabbis know that the Torah only commanded us to love our own fleshly brethren. The Torah is understood by them to therefore allow us to hate our fellow man who has wronged us and who is not an Israelite (Lev 19.18). Check on Google. Ask Google: Do rabbis say Jews can hate their enemies? The answer is a resounding YES. Backed by the Torah teachings. We can say that this is a misunderstanding of rabbinic authorities about the idea of love versus hatred. But my answer is to check and see how David viewed hatred of enemies. Turn to Ps 139.21,22. It says plainly enough:

"Do not I HATE THEM, O HaShem, who hate you? And am I not grieved with those who rise up against you? I HATE THEM with perfect hatred. I count them my enemies."

David knew what the Torah taught. Yeshua countered this spirit in Mt 5.43-45. These new commandments reveal that the view of HaShem which Yeshua had (has) points to a much higher level of understanding and appreciation of God than the angels of God shared with humankind back there in the Sinai period.

Yeshua -- because he was that Prophet spoken of by Moses in ancient times (Deut 18.15-19) and also because HE WAS GOD in human flesh -- was considered by heaven as sinless not because of what he did or did not DO but because of WHO he was. Yeshua typified LOVE for humanity more than seeing a need to carry out a ritualistic life regulated by rules and laws. What he was showing us is that sometimes, and more often than not, we can get bogged down in keeping regulations and the minutiae of the law to the point that we end up obeying laws of God and -- at the same time -- failing to obey GOD. The parable of the Good Samaritan establishes this fact to be the case. The showing of mercy and love toward humankind is a compelling higher law that needs to be considered more often than we take the time to do.

The apostle Peter noted: "And above all things have fervent love among yourselves: for love shall cover a multitude of sins" (1 Pet 4.8).

The higher law of God is self-revelatory. What is sin? It is the transgression of law. But if you are acting with a right motive to help another in need -- even if it involves sin -- God overlooks that sin in order to extend GRACE to the person who was showing another LOVE.

LOVE covers a multitude of sins. It doesn't seek to EXPOSE them. It doesn't seek to point the finger at others we love. There are some who feel it is their holy Spirit-driven duty to go about reprimanding brethren for real or imagined sins. THIS IS NOT THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD but of a sincere yet misdirected zeal. Sincerity is never enough. One can be sincere, but sincerely wrong.

God has appointed leaders in THIS ekklesia who -- if REAL sins are apparent -- will act on their own initiative to gently bring these shortcomings to the attention of the individual brother or sister who is offending. It is not for others to preempt the Rebbe or the Rebbetzin. There is a chain of holy Spirit command in this ministry. It flows from the Rebbe and Rebbetzin to the Pastors to our main Elder. And at this stage it STOPS right there. None of us wish to undermine or hurt our brothers and sisters. GOD IS DOING A NEW THING WITH THIS WORK to bring Messianic believers into the 21st century REAL WORLD. This is decidedly not the second millennium BCE nor is it the first century CE. Times change; events change; social conditions change; the world changes; and even though HaShem remains the same eternally in character his administrations change.

Are YOU changing with the times? Or are you still stuck in the religious backwater of a defunct churchianity or illicit talmudic Judaism?

That is what Peter was saying. Paul agreed: "Where sin ABOUNDS [not just "occurs"] GRACE MUCH MORE ABOUNDS" (Rom 5.20). Yet  Peter and Paul's words have been misunderstood. HaShem looks on the heart. Not on works of any kind, in the final analysis.

Yeshua is often quoted by Messianic believers in regard the Torah:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Mt 5.17).

And again, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Mt 5.18).

Yeshua did not destroy the Torah. Indeed, on this point of elucidation I will agree with Stern completely when he writes, on Mt 5.18-20, that they "enunciate three ways in which the Torah and the prophets remain necessary, applicable and in force. The remainder of Chapter 5 gives six specific cases in which Yeshua explains the fuller spiritual meaning of points in the Jewish Law. In fact, this verse states the theme and agenda of the entire Sermon on the Mount, in which Yeshua completes, makes fuller, the understanding of his talmidim concerning the Torah and the Prophets, so that they can more fully express what being God's people is all about" (Stern's New Testament Commentary, 26).

He continues by quoting from Anglican Christian author Brigid Younghughes who agrees with his assessment: Surely "to fulfill means to complete, in the sense of bringing to perfection, not, as Christians have all too often interpreted it, to render obsolete; to fulfill in such a way as to perfect a foundation on which to build further" (Christianity's Jewish Heritage, West Sussex: Angel Press, 1988, 8].

I am sure that there were a number of things that were accomplished when Yeshua walked the earth and gave a fulfilment to them. We can see changes in HaShem's administration of the Spirit in the falling of the Ruach HaKodesh upon converts. They speak in tongues, heal the sick, prophesy. But they no longer rip their clothes off and behave like mad men.

Not many Messianic believers are aware of the fact that the prophets of old "who spoke as they were moved by holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1.21) were certainly moved all right -- they gave their messages while stark naked (1 Sam 19.20-24; 10.5,6,9-11). God's people no longer behave this way. But the holy Spirit is recorded as also the cause of violence (Judg 3.10,11; 14.5,6 cf 13.25; 14.19; 15.14,15), and is instrumental in creating anger (1 Sam 11.6).

None of this is accorded the Spirit in the New Covenant administration.

Further, slavery is acknowledged and accepted in the Torah -- and it has been eclipsed.

Women have very few rights in the Torah -- that has been eclipsed.

Prostitution is condemned outright in the Torah -- yet by the time of Isaiah, the prophet noted that the hire of a particular prostitute was considered "holy to the Lord" because that "hire" was used to purchase food and clothing for HaShem's people (Isa 23.17,18). Hosea was commanded by God to marry a harlot (Hos 1.2) and Samson had a taste for ladies of the night (Judg 16.1) which predilection, like all his problems, "was of the LORD" (Judg 14.4). Jephthah was not only a great judge but he was the son of an obscure whore (Judg 11.1) and Judah's daughter-in-law was looked upon as being more righteous than the father of the Jewish nation (Gen 38.26). The latter story is located in the first book of Torah, Genesis -- a scroll which details God's accommodation to humankind.

The death penalty associated with certain sins is a stated fact in the Torah -- but Rav Shaul notes in his letters that condemnation has passed.

Recall that had Father Abraham lived in the days of Moses he would have been stoned to death for marrying his half-sister.

Messianic believers usually view the Torah as consisting of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But they all need to be reminded that Genesis is very much a part of the Torah and its content matter should be accepted as such.

So, when Yeshua tells us that "until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" we must always bear in mind that HE -- above all else -- WROTE THE TORAH AND CAN VALIDATE OR INVALIDATE anything included within its pages as he so wishes. Because of Torah's fluidity, it can be adjusted as need be with changing social conditions. The Torah is therefore not set in concrete.

The Messiah according to rabbinic authorities, is to introduce HIS OWN TORAH when he finally comes. Indeed, it is historical fact that the Jewish people of the Second Temple Period understood that when the Mashiach came He would have no hesitation in applying entirely NEW principles to the Torah, and adjusting the purity codes where He wished. For, it is written:

"The Torah which a man learns in this world [the Mosaic or Sinai Torah] is vanity, IN COMPARISON OF THE TORAH OF THE MESSIAH" --  Midrash Kohelet (83.1).

That I am absolutely correct in this assessment that the Torah is not immutable and unchangeable can be seen in the admission by the apostle to the nations (Rav Shaul) where he refers to his recognition of the authority of the above Midrash (which was in circulation in his day) in stating that his own Rabbinic ministry was based squarely on Torah -- but it was the Torah OF MESSIAH! Very few have noticed this admission. Notice it now, in two references:

1 Cor 9.21 "With those who live outside the framework of Torah, I put myself in the position of someone outside the Torah in order to win those outside the Torah - although I myself am not outside the framework of God's Torah but within the framework of Torah AS UPHELD BY THE MESSIAH!"

Gal 6.2 "Bear you one another's burdens, AND SO FULFILL THE TORAH OF MESSIAH."

Paul's various letters to the Gentiles were commentary on the Torah -- on precisely how spiritual, converted Gentiles were to observe the Torah principles as they applied to them.

What "Great News" (Gospel) is this! It could not be any plainer! The early Messianic believers in the Messianic Community of Faith adhered to the Torah as exemplified by the Living Torah, Yeshua haMashiach. Even the religious classes of the day -- the Pharisees especially -- could not fault the Jewish followers of Yeshua! True, there were persecutions against the disciples that occurred because of their association with the Messiah, but they were not indicted for their loyalty to, and obedience toward, an ENLARGED Torah. In no way.

As a matter of fact, Luke informs us in Acts of "many" of the original early followers of Yeshua who were added to the Messianic Assembly that were rabbinic authorities and educated teachers, including scribes and lawyers belonging to the sect of the Pharisees.

THIS is why the apostle John (the disciple whom "Yeshua loved") penned those immortal words at the very beginning of his Gospel: "For the Torah was given by Moshe; Grace and truth came through Yeshua the Messiah" (Jn 1.17).

So, not only did God divorce ancient Israel, and thus annul the Sinai Covenant as a marriage agreement, but -- and this is most important to realise -- God in the Person of Yeshua later DIED, and thus the death of the husband of the divorced woman (Israel) terminated the original marriage contract.

When Yeshua was raised from the dead the "New Covenant" (in Yeshua's blood) was activated in an authentic and real sense. And, it is fulfilled IN us, authentic Messianic talmidim of Yeshua the Messiah, and is empowered within us by the dynamic Ruach HaKodesh, as a "Covenant of Peace" (Shalom).

It's vital we understand the New Covenant.

We Christians today are the SPIRITUAL TEMPLE of God and when we assemble together there is to be no discrimination.

"In Him the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, slave and free man, male and female, disappear; you are all one in Messiah Yeshua" (Gal 3.28).

There are to be no racial distinctions. There are to be no social distinctions. There are to be no sexual discriminations. The point most miss is that if HaShem (God the Father) views His present spiritual Temple in precisely this manner, then surely the Torah must again be adjusted to accommodate such changes in His coming physical Temple. This is a prime reason why the coming Temple in Jerusalem MUST BE A NAZARENE Temple! It will take an Elijah to sort out all the issues involved.

That Temple of God is on the horizon, but it will not become a Nazarene Temple until the State of Israel acknowledges the Messiah -- THEIR Messiah -- as Yeshua, the Nazarene King of all Israel. That, too, is also on the horizon!